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
|
Return-Path: <peter_r@gmx.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 75A95ECB
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 30 Aug 2015 07:41:24 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.15.15])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AD0B415F
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 30 Aug 2015 07:41:23 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [192.168.50.29] ([69.50.179.106]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx001)
with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0MYfX0-1Z9QBJ1ude-00VRp8;
Sun, 30 Aug 2015 09:41:20 +0200
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="Apple-Mail=_BC70D88D-3DD0-4DA5-A6F0-1ED416541609"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\))
From: Peter R <peter_r@gmx.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAAS2fgShF=2vtPrKtXmdA454s_xpJbxSB0SFBsstniHB8WtGzQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 2015 00:41:16 -0700
Message-Id: <D00DB16B-6DAD-4F15-9DA6-15441C6223DA@gmx.com>
References: <CAEgR2PFB3h_8fr=d8HegRSD0XdooimhFKtLR4vKr2QXv+EwBfQ@mail.gmail.com>
<AD284610-4F40-445C-A074-CC94EDFFCBA8@gmx.com>
<CAAS2fgRs5NVM2nHKNXbgMJa51tDq-6ZBc6XfaScyP45UPWTW_g@mail.gmail.com>
<5CC48639-11D0-4682-BF82-443286C8E58D@gmx.com>
<CAAS2fgShF=2vtPrKtXmdA454s_xpJbxSB0SFBsstniHB8WtGzQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510)
X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:UjodqK/IYeVKDXNlkHgdEZfmJNck13qW7C7jZgJX7cUKVT1zsGa
Z+Z435wWSbCCOpW1dPrG26870U3TEwXk3wJ9T+y0xCkWkcoo2eTZ9ipVRil+wAzipv3Bwh9
HhkjvvrR+ybrNtEaLETY1hT5iuwABzolu+VXrgZsq05XXImI+UXYKCLJTl8G2B8903CNN4c
QAlIc0GiQ3IFGsw15DL+w==
X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:HlKe6tY61qI=:EdkWVOaYn3G8yDfhvQ7lJo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X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,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@lists.linuxfoundation.org Dev"
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Your Gmaxwell exchange
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: Sun, 30 Aug 2015 07:41:24 -0000
--Apple-Mail=_BC70D88D-3DD0-4DA5-A6F0-1ED416541609
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=us-ascii
Hi Greg,
>> I agree that miners may change their level of centralization. This =
neither
>> affects the model nor the results presented in the paper.
>=20
> It has tremdous significance to the real-world impact of your results.
The paper makes no claims about "miners changing their level of =
centralization." Whether it is or is not significant, it is outside the =
scope of the paper and irrelevant to the result that a fee market exists =
without a block size limit (given the assumption that some information =
about the transactions included in a block is communicated between =
miners during block solution propagation). =20
> If not for the other errors in your work,
Again, what you are calling "errors" are assumptions--in fact very =
reasonable assumptions that we know are valid for the network as a whole =
right now. You are proposing that maybe they won't be valid in the =
future if the miners move to some hypothetical configuration that you =
worry may be possible. I say prove it: show rigorously what the network =
would look like in a case where information about the transactions =
contained in a block is never communicated with the block solution. How =
do you get the miners to agree (assuming such a configuration is even =
physically possible)? Do you need all the miners to agree or only a =
portion of them? How reasonable is it that the systems moves into such =
a configuration? I know you spoke to this in your last response, but I =
mean really prove it...with a mathematical model, with diagrams and =
charts, with equations, with your assumptions clearly stated so that =
they can be put to the test--not by waving your hands on the bitcoin-dev =
mailing list. =20
This is an exciting field of research and we should encourage people to =
continue to explore these questions. =20
> this point would make the
> take away of your work not "a healthy transaction fee market exists
> without a block size limit" but rather "a decenteralized bitcoin
> cannot exist"-- as, accepting the other errors as fact your model
> shows that centralizing mining is always strictly more profitable at
> any level of fee demand; because your model equivilent shows that for
> any level of fee demand and gamma miners could increase their income
> by centeralizing further.
OK, I actually sort of agree with your very last sentence above. My =
paper indeed suggests that the most "profitable" configuration is one =
where there is only one "super pool." Is that likely to happen? I =
personally don't think so because of the game theory involved. But =
regardless of my opinion or your opinion on that matter, whether it is =
or isn't likely to happen is outside the scope of my paper. It is =
irrelevant to the result that a fee market exists without a block size =
limit given the assumption that there is more than a single miner.
> I absolutely agree that simplifications are useful and essential, but
> it is critically important to call them out before someone mistakes
> theoretical work as useful motivation for policy in the non-simplified
> system.
I do call them out. Furthermore, I've already agreed with you to =
further clarify these assumptions when I make the other corrections to =
the paper. Doing so will make the paper stronger. =20
I'm not going to address the remainder of your email because I believe =
that we are now talking past each other. I do appreciate the interest =
and attention that you've paid to my work on the Transaction Fee Market, =
and I also recognize the important contributions you've made such as =
coinjoin and HD wallets. =20
Best regards,
Peter
--Apple-Mail=_BC70D88D-3DD0-4DA5-A6F0-1ED416541609
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/html;
charset=us-ascii
<html><head><meta http-equiv=3D"Content-Type" content=3D"text/html =
charset=3Dus-ascii"></head><body style=3D"word-wrap: break-word; =
-webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; =
"><div>Hi Greg,</div><div><br><blockquote type=3D"cite"><blockquote =
type=3D"cite">I agree that miners may change their level of =
centralization. This neither<br>affects the model nor the results =
presented in the paper.<br></blockquote><br>It has tremdous significance =
to the real-world impact of your =
results.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>The paper makes no claims =
about "miners changing their level of centralization." Whether it =
<i>is</i> or <i>is not </i>significant, it is outside the scope of the =
paper and irrelevant to the result that a fee market exists without a =
block size limit (given the assumption that some information about the =
transactions included in a block is communicated between miners during =
block solution propagation). =
</div><div><br></div><blockquote type=3D"cite">If not =
for the other errors in your work, =
</blockquote><div><br></div><div>Again, what you are calling "errors" =
are assumptions--in fact very reasonable assumptions that we know are =
valid for the network as a whole <i>right now. </i>You are =
proposing that maybe they won't be valid in the future if the miners =
move to some hypothetical configuration that you worry may be possible. =
I say prove it: show rigorously what the network would look like =
in a case where information about the transactions contained in a block =
is never communicated with the block solution. How do you get the =
miners to agree (assuming such a configuration is even physically =
possible)? Do you need <i>all </i>the miners to agree or only a =
portion of them? How reasonable is it that the systems moves into =
such a configuration? I know you spoke to this in your last =
response, but I mean really prove it...with a mathematical model, with =
diagrams and charts, with equations, with your assumptions clearly =
stated so that they can be put to the test--not by waving your hands on =
the bitcoin-dev mailing list. =
</div><div><br></div><div>This is an exciting field of research =
and we should encourage people to continue to explore these questions. =
</div><br><blockquote type=3D"cite">this point would make =
the<br>take away of your work not "a healthy transaction fee market =
exists<br>without a block size limit" but rather "a decenteralized =
bitcoin<br>cannot exist"-- as, accepting the other errors as fact your =
model<br>shows that centralizing mining is always strictly more =
profitable at<br>any level of fee demand; because your model equivilent =
shows that for<br>any level of fee demand and gamma miners could =
increase their income<br>by centeralizing =
further.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>OK, I actually sort of =
agree with your very last sentence above. My paper indeed suggests =
that the most "profitable" configuration is one where there is only one =
"super pool." Is that likely to happen? I personally don't =
think so because of the game theory involved. But regardless of my =
opinion or your opinion on that matter, whether it is or isn't likely to =
happen is outside the scope of my paper. It is irrelevant to =
the result that a fee market exists without a block size limit given the =
assumption that there is more than a single =
miner.</div><div><br></div><blockquote type=3D"cite">I absolutely agree =
that simplifications are useful and essential, but<br>it is critically =
important to call them out before someone mistakes<br>theoretical work =
as useful motivation for policy in the =
non-simplified<br>system.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I do call =
them out. Furthermore, I've already agreed with you to further =
clarify these assumptions when I make the other corrections to the =
paper. Doing so will make the paper stronger. =
</div><div><br></div><div>I'm not going to address the remainder =
of your email because I believe that we are now talking past each other. =
I do appreciate the interest and attention that you've paid to my =
work on the Transaction Fee Market, and I also recognize the important =
contributions you've made such as coinjoin and HD wallets. =
</div><div><br></div><div>Best =
regards,</div><div>Peter</div></div><br></body></html>=
--Apple-Mail=_BC70D88D-3DD0-4DA5-A6F0-1ED416541609--
|
