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
|
Return-Path: <tomh@thinlink.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 35B61B80
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 30 Mar 2017 15:38:24 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-wr0-f178.google.com (mail-wr0-f178.google.com
[209.85.128.178])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7F919186
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 30 Mar 2017 15:38:23 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-wr0-f178.google.com with SMTP id w43so65712394wrb.0
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 30 Mar 2017 08:38:23 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=thinlink-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623;
h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to
:cc; bh=1DujFZqXuLIx5Bbx6g+Q+vHq/qs0V1bppNZN+8f9pQ8=;
b=AHWSF+LEh0UwCDwq8OOUgV//NA53QXH1EAsrnPvNZFPKPiIwFmynzrRE2zFiGti1+D
7IAfUZOQLwhgkNgfxIGG2mgKnzyGMrS1X7kEyVeKS0+byKc+iI0RiwqB6tInGX81ku+o
9eWwUqsK99w5AaBc52Rhr04cTU2RKh+2RKyGVzJEnJ20bk5Ee8lQ9MMtGsm1iFXnLW+M
n3xW4eAVvcF1f+ziC/rSO3m7UGwVmfpoOVg+iUhmOltVdN1mgGTuW2S7wA4lR2Y1o9ri
Bov7gA5aDooONYhb44QE1EAz5kBCzl0gFzp8IMe8verRNZvmT/Ns9t8U6VgSMje5/BTZ
rDZg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20161025;
h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date
:message-id:subject:to:cc;
bh=1DujFZqXuLIx5Bbx6g+Q+vHq/qs0V1bppNZN+8f9pQ8=;
b=gcGn3Dhu/hvHX03CLDgW0ijO/+wwCQGYo6sle6Uv4wKmzUaIBqcu9/+cvzanCyAAPH
2I1s86yGtuc41tqnvclKm2dJQEgbtzW8i0iSdNtPVF4GT8paOkHftskBpltg7aG438jY
LtooD8zBBw3Rw2MrfPLIRhK4YX9qc2QyA7YqFrJ2LyxjjON9VNYN/6GdRjnOfEyQB82C
7R3C8E3Q2TDTKHOBnHkzpDxvQ1UicUCEsHPuz2gMOw2Ldl5AkHPhLnsLXUpBDZisQ2sG
QomZeZoEy/fMmeT5bnrzzkSzHeA528fJsfuhP9PIhceMqcJdY1/w6CUtOTXZrJHVWGuJ
OxSw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H3wWe1YGbbTzIbropiYZ9pP3A/PKbzKNPCgU/r6tLALHLygf1DUkwYzs5bUo2Gu1vr97p3ETt4wGjzruwNP
X-Received: by 10.28.18.207 with SMTP id 198mr4246256wms.133.1490888301904;
Thu, 30 Mar 2017 08:38:21 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.28.15.80 with HTTP; Thu, 30 Mar 2017 08:38:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.28.15.80 with HTTP; Thu, 30 Mar 2017 08:38:20 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CALJP9GBk4gG0H+tEJmEiz=0+LAQoe6_sL1Fv-BCJSfmvfY8PRA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CALJP9GB2Fds8m9JpaVv0NxGDr579BtR9RMs7-KNSLkK8Mz7LoA@mail.gmail.com>
<CALJP9GAOgpSAhrrYFPRbGKZXwqZn_oDUmv6B7wcvwxcZufDd0g@mail.gmail.com>
<CALJP9GDkdxsvOZHJxzx+0pvjWBAkAswZCWXcp=zL7LNMRNfCOg@mail.gmail.com>
<CALJP9GBk4gG0H+tEJmEiz=0+LAQoe6_sL1Fv-BCJSfmvfY8PRA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Tom Harding <tomh@thinlink.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2017 08:38:20 -0700
Message-ID: <CALJP9GDH1xQ-cYc1SN6jejXDA49eiy_OR49XLLWd+=VdNo7ekA@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Raystonn ." <raystonn@hotmail.com>,
Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1145b928a2c1d4054bf47bee
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID, HTML_MESSAGE, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,
RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM autolearn=no version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 30 Mar 2017 16:03:29 +0000
Subject: [bitcoin-dev] High fees / centralization
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol 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: Thu, 30 Mar 2017 15:38:24 -0000
--001a1145b928a2c1d4054bf47bee
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Raystonn,
Your logic is very hard to dispute. An important special case is small
miners.
Small miners use pools exactly because they want smaller, more frequent
payments.
Rising fees force them to take payments less frequently, and will only tend
to make more of them give up.
With fees rising superlinearly, this centralizing effect is much stronger
than the oft-cited worry of small miners joining large pools to decrease
orphan rates.
On Mar 29, 2017 15:01, "Raystonn . via bitcoin-dev" <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
Low node costs are a good goal for nodes that handle transactions the node
operator can afford. Nobody is going to run a node for a network they do
not use for their own transactions. If transactions have fees that
prohibit use for most economic activity, that means node count will drop
until nodes are generally run by those who settle large amounts. That is
very centralizing.
Raystonn
On 29 Mar 2017 12:14 p.m., Jared Lee Richardson via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
In order for any blocksize increase to be agreed upon, more consensus is
needed. The proportion of users believing no blocksize increases are
needed is larger than the hardfork target core wants(95% consensus). The
proportion of users believing in microtransactions for all is also larger
than 5%, and both of those groups may be larger than 10% respectively. I
don't think either the Big-blocks faction nor the low-node-costs faction
have even a simple majority of support. Getting consensus is going to be a
big mess, but it is critical that it is done.
--001a1145b928a2c1d4054bf47bee
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"auto"><div style=3D"font-family:sans-serif" dir=3D"auto">Raysto=
nn,=C2=A0</div><div style=3D"font-family:sans-serif" dir=3D"auto"><br></div=
><div style=3D"font-family:sans-serif" dir=3D"auto">Your logic is very hard=
to dispute. An important special case is small miners.</div><div style=3D"=
font-family:sans-serif" dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div style=3D"font-family:sa=
ns-serif" dir=3D"auto">Small miners use pools exactly because they want sma=
ller, more frequent payments.</div><div dir=3D"auto" style=3D"font-family:s=
ans-serif"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto" style=3D"font-family:sans-serif">Ris=
ing fees force them to take payments less frequently, and will only tend to=
make more of them give up.</div><div dir=3D"auto" style=3D"font-family:san=
s-serif"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto" style=3D"font-family:sans-serif">With =
fees rising superlinearly, this centralizing effect is much stronger than t=
he oft-cited worry of small miners joining large pools to decrease orphan r=
ates.</div><br><div class=3D"gmail_extra" dir=3D"auto"><br><div class=3D"gm=
ail_quote">On Mar 29, 2017 15:01, "Raystonn . via bitcoin-dev" &l=
t;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@list=
s.linuxfoundation.org</a>> wrote:<br type=3D"attribution"><blockquote cl=
ass=3D"quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding=
-left:1ex">
<div>
<div dir=3D"auto">
<div>Low node costs are a good goal for nodes that handle transactions the =
node operator can afford.=C2=A0 Nobody is going to run a node for a network=
they do not use for their own transactions.=C2=A0 If transactions have fee=
s that prohibit use for most economic activity,
that means node count will drop until nodes are generally run by those who=
settle large amounts.=C2=A0 That is very centralizing.</div>
<div dir=3D"auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir=3D"auto">Raystonn</div>
<div dir=3D"auto">
<div class=3D"gmail_extra" dir=3D"auto"><br>
<div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div class=3D"elided-text">On 29 Mar 2017 12:14 =
p.m., Jared Lee Richardson via bitcoin-dev <<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-de=
v@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.<wbr>linux=
foundation.org</a>> wrote:<br type=3D"attribution">
</div><blockquote class=3D"m_4164360079803354099quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 =
0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div><div class=3D"elided-text">
<div dir=3D"ltr">In order for any blocksize increase to be agreed upon, mor=
e consensus is needed.=C2=A0 The proportion of users believing no blocksize=
increases are needed is larger than the hardfork target core wants(95% con=
sensus).=C2=A0 The proportion of users believing
in microtransactions for all is also larger than 5%, and both of those gro=
ups may be larger than 10% respectively.=C2=A0 I don't think either the=
Big-blocks faction nor the low-node-costs faction have even a simple major=
ity of support.=C2=A0 Getting consensus is going
to be a big mess, but it is critical that it is done.</div>
</div><div><br>
<div class=3D"m_4164360079803354099elided-text"><div class=3D"elided-text">=
<br><br></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div></div></div></div></div>=
</blockquote></div></div></div>
--001a1145b928a2c1d4054bf47bee--
|
