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
|
Return-Path: <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0B8E4279
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 12 Aug 2015 10:28:41 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-wi0-f177.google.com (mail-wi0-f177.google.com
[209.85.212.177])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6956D166
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 12 Aug 2015 10:28:40 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by wibhh20 with SMTP id hh20so21908691wib.0
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 12 Aug 2015 03:28:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc
:content-type;
bh=D5NkTCMPyTron7J/5dUnfIII7yeoCFSpEktOG/vWwI8=;
b=adyd+RIqiaC0ZzR59SKMylMUuJ+UbJOM3IrOfDqECWd1jURJLcyeIaBM6jIbClxpzG
FhuCcPeAv+OYbyv86oBfGY6eq6HVhZKH1r4OQO0Nn6g8WN6Qgj4pfqf3ojfQgeBhyha0
b4GdyHJN/kNPU+nf3BhYwAit8/UbJBEm8gblfBIypSSxPPd0QHhnWgiKxdBhTCm0lIjF
igZ7gYycDGyzdrmAm2ufkbmQGY06LiK4DKWkzDmRlfI1Hpj+NqpkUAG3iJlCKEUlOrDC
JysfgjapVqYcMWGo757XSmgDI1SxSlvkl6/V/3YAiESfCZ14p0tT91vIUR78r59g3stv
nlmA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkEM5NzyDoiFLQdYJCay1h8yejT9NU50A3RnJvZQSdmE4aPHfka3uoephNv7R/OloaKzKON
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.181.13.169 with SMTP id ez9mr43279229wid.92.1439375319193;
Wed, 12 Aug 2015 03:28:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.194.31.230 with HTTP; Wed, 12 Aug 2015 03:28:39 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 12:28:39 +0200
Message-ID: <CABm2gDqn4bDTqmp=9h_qBjgjV0=LhY97bTHdRevAREYVyR07EQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
To: Thomas Zander <thomas@thomaszander.se>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,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: [bitcoin-dev] A summary list of all concerns related to rising the
block size
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: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 10:28:41 -0000
We've identified a fundamental disagreement in:
- The block size maximum consensus rule serves to limit mining centralization
But as said I believe at least 2 different formal proofs can be
produced that in fact this is the case. One of them (the one I'm
working on) remains true even after superluminal communication, free
unlimited global bandwidth and science fiction snarks.
But let's just list the concerns first.
I believe there's 2 categories:
1) Increasing the block size may increase centralization.
- Mining centralization will get worse (for example, China's aggregate
hashrate becomes even larger)
- Government control in a single jurisdiction could enforce
transaction censorship and destroy irreversibility of transactions
- Some use cases that rely on a decentralized chain (like
trustless options) cannot rely on Bitcoin anymore.
- Reversible transactions will have proportional fees rather
than flat ones.
- Some use cases that rely on flat fees (like remittance) may
not be practical in Bitcoin anymore
- The full node count will decrease, leaving less resources to serve SPV nodes.
2) Trying to avoid "hitting the limit" permanently minimizes minimum
fees (currently zero) and fees in general
- If fees' block reward doesn't increase enough, the subsidy block
reward may become insufficient to protect the irreversibility of the
system at some point in time, and the system is attacked and destroyed
at that point in time
- Miners will continue to run noncompetitive block creation policies
(ie accepting free transactions)
- More new Bitcoin businesses may be created based on unsustainable
assumptions and consequently fail.
- "Free transactions bitcoin marketing" may continue and users may get
angry when they discover they have been lied about the sustainability
of that property and the reliability of free transactions.
Please suggest more concerns or new categories if you think they're needed.
|
