1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
|
Return-Path: <washington.sanchez@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6C71410F8
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 8 Sep 2015 14:02:55 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-ig0-f178.google.com (mail-ig0-f178.google.com
[209.85.213.178])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A8CDD160
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 8 Sep 2015 14:02:54 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by igbni9 with SMTP id ni9so77660080igb.0
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 08 Sep 2015 07:02:54 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
:cc:content-type;
bh=IBVQSEMjIdKkn6ARv6yN1T/40K2Roco0Fflc8TVoGWU=;
b=yfUAiVaT5OzPWf48103DDHnjhFUr2QXMg4K8xP9d0vvUjATRS1QgamspMoSlkvR90m
ZJoSzQLSmskJJROg9FHeFxRhwtzm3lHi2wmcoo6IFP19gAAuTVuRd+nfmuCWDUOrl1wv
9y3tn1k/BMDhwnD17bDskSkf8XRtOuivGutIduVmdhy2UzGlpDbaR1csQUERPe3Z//kq
x/j9Aj1oanF9zpjSr++R2toAL4vQqNTRKIcKdnTNaOb7RYkvL36UF4LLiLXaS13yxoJ9
GRmDKqyh9jdeeH1/gglMvKFYsNUvO2Pl3wsti48Bff0nrqxfW6Vn71L242eyj4cOoAKu
9pag==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.50.90.180 with SMTP id bx20mr43087264igb.53.1441720971312;
Tue, 08 Sep 2015 07:02:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.107.178.12 with HTTP; Tue, 8 Sep 2015 07:02:51 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CALqxMTERUFEFgJ4quz2dWLRw9fD3DkBp-6RO4cuvdBGV2MSyhw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAG0bcYzzg4yeQvd27PZu5Fqv1ULS3cKeQHaRZ2zPcM3OASw1cg@mail.gmail.com>
<CADJgMztJx1cBFhNOwMgBHJGPmBNPqsTdQbCCjFBmDBSBfTMMUg@mail.gmail.com>
<CAAre=yRawFU_WMdE+ReemscYD33ez1PF6VhU2FmWo2fAEcw_Xw@mail.gmail.com>
<CALqxMTERUFEFgJ4quz2dWLRw9fD3DkBp-6RO4cuvdBGV2MSyhw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2015 00:02:51 +1000
Message-ID: <CAG0bcYzBCsg9xNLGmu4S=PEPjtbd2iBLH52ryswbkRM23OqquA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Washington Sanchez <washington.sanchez@gmail.com>
To: Adam Back <adam@cypherspace.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bea3d285c4488051f3cd2ba
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW
autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Dynamic limit to the block size - BIP draft
discussion
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 08 Sep 2015 14:02:55 -0000
--047d7bea3d285c4488051f3cd2ba
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> The maximum block-size is one that can be filled at zero-cost by
> miners, and so allows some kinds of amplification of selfish-mining
> related attacks
A selfish mining attack would have to be performed for at least 2000 blocks
over a period of 4 weeks in order to achieve a meager 10% increase in the
block size.
If there goal is to simply drive up fees to gain acceptance into the block,
we're in exactly the same position we are in today (as in nothing stops a
miner from doing this).
If the goal is to increase the block size to push out smaller miners,
they'll have to perform this attack over the course of years and destroy
any economic incentives they have for mining in the first place.
why give this power up to a subsection of the ecosystem in order to make
> it easier to change or game
Well this same could be said for developers trying to predict what the
appropriate block size should be over the next 20 years... it's a hallmark
to a group of bankers trying to predict the appropriate interest rate for
the entire economy. Just as it is impossible to predict the appropriate
hash rate to secure the network, so it goes for the block size. Both need
to adjust dynamically to the scale/adoption of the network.
On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 11:13 PM, Adam Back <adam@cypherspace.org> wrote:
> The maximum block-size is one that can be filled at zero-cost by
> miners, and so allows some kinds of amplification of selfish-mining
> related attacks.
>
> Adam
>
>
> On 8 September 2015 at 13:28, Ivan Brightly via bitcoin-dev
> <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > This is true, but miners already control block size through soft caps.
> > Miners are fully capable of producing smaller blocks regardless of the
> max
> > block limit, with or without collusion. Arguably, there is no need to
> ever
> > reduce the max block size unless technology advances for some reason
> reverse
> > course - aka, WW3 takes a toll on the internet and the average bandwidth
> > available halves. The likelihood of significant technology contraction in
> > the near future seems rather unlikely and is more broadly problematic for
> > society than bitcoin specifically.
> >
> > The only reason for reducing the max block limit other than technology
> > availability is if you think that this is what will produce the fee
> market,
> > which is back to an economic discussion - not a technology scaling
> > discussion.
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 4:49 AM, Btc Drak via bitcoin-dev
> > <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> > but allow meaningful relief to transaction volume pressure in response
> >> > to true market demand
> >>
> >> If blocksize can only increase then it's like a market that only goes
> >> up which is unrealistic. Transaction will volume ebb and flow
> >> significantly. Some people have been looking at transaction volume
> >> charts over time and all they can see is an exponential curve which
> >> they think will go on forever, yet nothing goes up forever and it will
> >> go through significant trend cycles (like everything does). If you
> >> dont want to hurt the fee market, the blocksize has to be elastic and
> >> allow contraction as well as expansion.
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > bitcoin-dev mailing list
> > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
> >
>
--
-------------------------------------------
*Dr Washington Y. Sanchez <http://onename.com/drwasho>*
Co-founder, OB1 <http://ob1.io>
Core developer of OpenBazaar <https://openbazaar.org>
@drwasho <https://twitter.com/drwasho>
--047d7bea3d285c4488051f3cd2ba
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr"><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px =
0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-l=
eft-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><span style=3D"font-size:12.8px">The maxi=
mum block-size is one that can be filled at zero-cost by</span><br style=3D=
"font-size:12.8px"><span style=3D"font-size:12.8px">miners, and so allows s=
ome kinds of amplification of selfish-mining</span><br style=3D"font-size:1=
2.8px"><span style=3D"font-size:12.8px">related attacks</span></blockquote>=
<div><br></div><div>A selfish mining attack would have to be performed for =
at least 2000 blocks over a period of 4 weeks in order to achieve a meager =
10% increase in the block size.=C2=A0</div><div><br></div><div>If there goa=
l is to simply drive up fees to gain acceptance into the block, we're i=
n exactly the same position we are in today (as in nothing stops a miner fr=
om doing this).=C2=A0</div><div>If the goal is to increase the block size t=
o push out smaller miners, they'll have to perform this attack over the=
course of years and destroy any economic incentives they have for mining i=
n the first place.</div><div><br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" st=
yle=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb=
(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><span style=3D"font=
-size:12.8px">=C2=A0why give this power up to a subsection of the ecosystem=
in order to make it easier to change or game</span></blockquote><div><br><=
/div><div>Well this same could be said for developers trying to predict wha=
t the appropriate block size should be over the next 20 years... it's a=
hallmark to a group of bankers trying to predict the appropriate interest =
rate for the entire economy. Just as it is impossible to predict the approp=
riate hash rate to secure the network, so it goes for the block size. Both =
need to adjust dynamically to the scale/adoption of the network.</div></div=
><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Tue, Sep 8, 2=
015 at 11:13 PM, Adam Back <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:adam@cyp=
herspace.org" target=3D"_blank">adam@cypherspace.org</a>></span> wrote:<=
br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left=
:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">The maximum block-size is one that can be=
filled at zero-cost by<br>
miners, and so allows some kinds of amplification of selfish-mining<br>
related attacks.<br>
<br>
Adam<br>
<br>
<br>
On 8 September 2015 at 13:28, Ivan Brightly via bitcoin-dev<br>
<div class=3D"HOEnZb"><div class=3D"h5"><<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@l=
ists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>> wro=
te:<br>
> This is true, but miners already control block size through soft caps.=
<br>
> Miners are fully capable of producing smaller blocks regardless of the=
max<br>
> block limit, with or without collusion. Arguably, there is no need to =
ever<br>
> reduce the max block size unless technology advances for some reason r=
everse<br>
> course - aka, WW3 takes a toll on the internet and the average bandwid=
th<br>
> available halves. The likelihood of significant technology contraction=
in<br>
> the near future seems rather unlikely and is more broadly problematic =
for<br>
> society than bitcoin specifically.<br>
><br>
> The only reason for reducing the max block limit other than technology=
<br>
> availability is if you think that this is what will produce the fee ma=
rket,<br>
> which is back to an economic discussion - not a technology scaling<br>
> discussion.<br>
><br>
> On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 4:49 AM, Btc Drak via bitcoin-dev<br>
> <<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-d=
ev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>> wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> > but allow meaningful relief to transaction volume pressure in=
response<br>
>> > to true market demand<br>
>><br>
>> If blocksize can only increase then it's like a market that on=
ly goes<br>
>> up which is unrealistic. Transaction will volume ebb and flow<br>
>> significantly. Some people have been looking at transaction volume=
<br>
>> charts over time and all they can see is an exponential curve whic=
h<br>
>> they think will go on forever, yet nothing goes up forever and it =
will<br>
>> go through significant trend cycles (like everything does). If you=
<br>
>> dont want to hurt the fee market, the blocksize has to be elastic =
and<br>
>> allow contraction as well as expansion.<br>
><br>
><br>
</div></div><div class=3D"HOEnZb"><div class=3D"h5">> __________________=
_____________________________<br>
> bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
> <a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@l=
ists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
> <a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-=
dev" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org=
/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><br>
><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear=3D"all"><div><br></div>-- <br>=
<div class=3D"gmail_signature"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div><div dir=3D"ltr"><div>=
<div>-------------------------------------------</div><div><b><a href=3D"ht=
tp://onename.com/drwasho" target=3D"_blank">Dr Washington Y. Sanchez</a></b=
></div><div>Co-founder, <a href=3D"http://ob1.io" target=3D"_blank">OB1</a>=
</div><div>Core developer of <a href=3D"https://openbazaar.org" target=3D"_=
blank">OpenBazaar</a></div><div><a href=3D"https://twitter.com/drwasho" tar=
get=3D"_blank">@drwasho</a></div></div><div><br></div></div></div></div></d=
iv>
</div>
--047d7bea3d285c4488051f3cd2ba--
|
