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
|
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 E57F097
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 11 Aug 2015 19:53:58 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-wi0-f180.google.com (mail-wi0-f180.google.com
[209.85.212.180])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1D1A9123
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 11 Aug 2015 19:53:58 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by wijp15 with SMTP id p15so190558691wij.0
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 11 Aug 2015 12:53:56 -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:in-reply-to:references:date
:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type;
bh=fhzd1FR23vXpB511bLrDlW3T5qMyuPxNWQZfwaHk/So=;
b=NsLqxL3IzFTeZ0tsdY0Dgk+oI/NWmfqNmx8RodBzIDS5UM1uAUINFZcYcO6NbHrvzv
TlLoLBpWtF4hlC7PEYFSkKyuucq1e7joxvt+kj30q/qQAYHYIKWeM9VhsjRGzTZzGbgv
Sa53ePourOlm1oPYEOzx/SdWjwrpZdH0+q9wONmNvDteZFCvvTi1lT5E4WibxRL6oFfk
JyKc7ZEna9eTplSYuTN7ufeyFFtFaHt0Wpst18V3JVco21zqv6TBZoDm35wKWLulUXfN
Dx+iCjARuupYs1Qr4Pc/QlcbZWiwEWW2BVbqa1Y+0voO4s/d8gY6DPN+C+whJoh1LNch
tmqg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnAc/mcSIkWdTlaCI5/jufDRITCtjNSAdr1ZdEEF3qlCG+oK+H93KYKFRgpdNis+n6/gWxO
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.37.74 with SMTP id w10mr37224174wij.92.1439322836737;
Tue, 11 Aug 2015 12:53:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.194.31.230 with HTTP; Tue, 11 Aug 2015 12:53:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.194.31.230 with HTTP; Tue, 11 Aug 2015 12:53:56 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CALgxB7sLsod9Kb-pwxGwCtPpWXsUusDE1nJ7p4nbFMG8mDWFtg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABsx9T16fH+56isq95m4+QWsKwP==tf75ep8ghnEcBoV4OtZJA@mail.gmail.com>
<CABm2gDpwMQzju+Gsoe3qMi60MPr7OAiSuigy3RdA1xh-SwFzbw@mail.gmail.com>
<CABm2gDoz4NMEQuQj6UHCYYCwihZrEC4Az8xDvTBwiZDf9eQ7-w@mail.gmail.com>
<8181630.GdAj0CPZYc@coldstorage>
<CABm2gDp2svO2G5bHs5AcjjN8dmP6P5nv0xriWez-pvzs2oBL5w@mail.gmail.com>
<CALgxB7sQM5ObxyxDiN_BOyJrgsgfQ6PAtJi52dJENfWCRKywWg@mail.gmail.com>
<CABm2gDq+2mXEN2hZY6_JYXAJX=Wxrxr6jm86P6g2YD4zzy-=Nw@mail.gmail.com>
<CALgxB7sLsod9Kb-pwxGwCtPpWXsUusDE1nJ7p4nbFMG8mDWFtg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2015 21:53:56 +0200
Message-ID: <CABm2gDr3ixS2pxfnuefU1VMn7Qf-4mxDGdG-6UEV0Nf28eigqA@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
To: Michael Naber <mickeybob@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e89a8f64720f66c947051d0e7635
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,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] Fees and the block-finding process
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, 11 Aug 2015 19:53:59 -0000
--e89a8f64720f66c947051d0e7635
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Aug 11, 2015 9:37 PM, "Michael Naber" <mickeybob@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hitting the limit in and of itself is not necessarily a bad thing. The
question at hand is whether we should constrain that limit below what
technology is capable of delivering. I'm arguing that not only we should
not, but that we could not even if we wanted to, since competition will
deliver capacity for global consensus whether it's in Bitcoin or in some
other product / fork.
You didn't answer the 2 questions...
Anyway, if we don't care about centralization at all, we can just remove
the limit: that's what "technology can provide".
Maybe in that case it is developers who move to a decentralized
competitor...
> On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 2:27 PM, Jorge Tim=C3=B3n <jtimon@jtimon.cc> wrot=
e:
>>
>>
>> On Aug 11, 2015 8:46 PM, "Michael Naber" <mickeybob@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi Jorge: Many people would like to participate in a global consensus
network -- which is a network where all the participating nodes are aware
of and agree upon every transaction. Constraining Bitcoin capacity below
the limits of technology will only push users seeking to participate in a
global consensus network to other solutions which have adequate capacity,
such as BitcoinXT or others. Note that lightning / hub and spoke do not
meet requirements for users wishing to participate in global consensus,
because they are not global consensus networks, since all participating
nodes are not aware of all transactions.
>>
>> Even if you are right, first fees will raise and that will be what
pushes people to other altcoins, no?
>> Can we agree that the first step in any potentially bad situation is
hitting the limit and then fees rising as a consequence?
>
>
--e89a8f64720f66c947051d0e7635
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<p dir=3D"ltr"><br>
On Aug 11, 2015 9:37 PM, "Michael Naber" <<a href=3D"mailto:mi=
ckeybob@gmail.com">mickeybob@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">> Hitting the limit in and of itself is not necessarily a=
bad thing. The question at hand is whether we should constrain that limit =
below what technology is capable of delivering. I'm arguing that not on=
ly we should not, but that we could not even if we wanted to, since competi=
tion will deliver capacity for global consensus whether it's in Bitcoin=
or in some other product / fork.</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">You didn't answer the 2 questions...<br>
Anyway, if we don't care about centralization at all, we can just remov=
e the limit: that's what "technology can provide".<br>
Maybe in that case it is developers who move to a decentralized competitor.=
..</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">> On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 2:27 PM, Jorge Tim=C3=B3n <j=
timon@jtimon.cc> wrote:<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> On Aug 11, 2015 8:46 PM, "Michael Naber" <<a href=3D"=
mailto:mickeybob@gmail.com">mickeybob@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>> ><br>
>> > Hi Jorge: Many people would like to participate in a global c=
onsensus network -- which is a network where all the participating nodes ar=
e aware of and agree upon every transaction.=C2=A0Constraining Bitcoin capa=
city below the limits of technology will only push users seeking to partici=
pate in a global consensus network to other solutions which have adequate c=
apacity, such as BitcoinXT or others. Note that lightning / hub and spoke d=
o not meet requirements for users wishing to participate in global consensu=
s, because they are not global consensus networks, since all participating =
nodes are not aware of all transactions.=C2=A0<br>
>><br>
>> Even if you are right, first fees will raise and that will be what=
pushes people to other altcoins, no?<br>
>> Can we agree that the first step in any potentially bad situation =
is hitting the limit and then fees rising as a consequence?<br>
><br>
><br>
</p>
--e89a8f64720f66c947051d0e7635--
|
