path: root/a3/381762e871ab69c7d92827c48d9c865a096f0c

Return-Path: <gubatron@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
	[172.17.192.35])
	by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6F2D18D4
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Tue, 11 Aug 2015 21:31:03 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-io0-f172.google.com (mail-io0-f172.google.com
	[209.85.223.172])
	by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8BEF7176
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Tue, 11 Aug 2015 21:31:02 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by iods203 with SMTP id s203so1429317iod.0
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Tue, 11 Aug 2015 14:31:02 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
	h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to
	:cc:content-type;
	bh=nz8EpGZJeIbPMk/T7L82rKI4HHD8a5MPheAZfsSljvM=;
	b=ORr1zKGh85KYMH+29G69tsuBbCAB3+Wgj9gsS8X9PFOmprL4bK3bWrBhpVzU/V+wCE
	04X8wQsEbWmTS8+Mywz6mVl2d500OcdrPH3kkV6pTJsee1TgNInz4aviR1j6fN68F5Lb
	/SyQGb2Onv0mQIPMofhitITJ1rDmGWNBoaslZtSs/zSG4MtZQMq80DCiCtM1M85qYf+9
	I7SKx3AHMmHYNpJP4zetVJluJoEmtoYqh69BhUDfEvGJkfsNoQ1v7V+dHBQuBoJST4Qj
	YJ8x6KRCP0yI/YnuGlfnuFfMFyU13CUwWmM+ro0yOBrVbPcAicTrCPBavQdW5HmtY5YB
	k3cQ==
X-Received: by 10.107.150.141 with SMTP id y135mr27876182iod.38.1439328662008; 
	Tue, 11 Aug 2015 14:31:02 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.36.122.144 with HTTP; Tue, 11 Aug 2015 14:30:42 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CALqxMTFfUdMuNsNnx-B+SPq7HvQyA+NkvFHGVYPiFHn-ZipVJw@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>
	<CAPg+sBjGVk1jHraLZTroRneL6L1HxZ-bTGaLNwakcDSDDHqauA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CALgxB7unOhWjoCcvGoCqzMnzwTL8XdJWt18kdiDSEeJ_cuiHqg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CALqxMTFfUdMuNsNnx-B+SPq7HvQyA+NkvFHGVYPiFHn-ZipVJw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Angel Leon <gubatron@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2015 17:30:42 -0400
Message-ID: <CADZB0_Y-ddH8-rpfrUzfG1rvmC_Jy4cr8m_mC2JtLt-LiYgd_g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Adam Back <adam@cypherspace.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11403fd49d3bc8051d0fd167
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] 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 21:31:03 -0000

--001a11403fd49d3bc8051d0fd167
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

tell that to people in poor countries, or even in first world countries.
The competitive thing here is a deal breaker for a lot of people who have
no clue/don't care for decentralization, they just want to send money from
A to B, like email.

http://twitter.com/gubatron

On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 5:23 PM, Adam Back via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> I dont think Bitcoin being cheaper is the main characteristic of
> Bitcoin.  I think the interesting thing is trustlessness - being able
> to transact without relying on third parties.
>
> Adam
>
>
> On 11 August 2015 at 22:18, Michael Naber via bitcoin-dev
> <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > The only reason why Bitcoin has grown the way it has, and in fact the
> only
> > reason why we're all even here on this mailing list talking about this,
> is
> > because Bitcoin is growing, since it's "better money than other money".
> One
> > of the key characteristics toward that is Bitcoin being inexpensive to
> > transact. If that characteristic is no longer true, then Bitcoin isn't
> going
> > to grow, and in fact Bitcoin itself will be replaced by better money
> that is
> > less expensive to transfer.
> >
> > So the importance of this issue cannot be overstated -- it's compete or
> die
> > for Bitcoin -- because people want to transact with global consensus at
> high
> > volume, and because technology exists to service that want, then it's
> going
> > to be met. This is basic rules of demand and supply. I don't necessarily
> > disagree with your position on only wanting to support uncontroversial
> > commits, but I think it's important to get consensus on the criticality
> of
> > the block size issue: do you agree, disagree, or not take a side, and
> why?
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 2:51 PM, Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 9:37 PM, Michael Naber via bitcoin-dev
> >> <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> 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.
> >>
> >>
> >> The question is not what the technology can deliver. The question is
> what
> >> price we're willing to pay for that. It is not a boolean "at this size,
> >> things break, and below it, they work". A small constant factor increase
> >> will unlikely break anything in the short term, but it will come with
> higher
> >> centralization pressure of various forms. There is discussion about
> whether
> >> these centralization pressures are significant, but citing that it's
> >> artificially constrained under the limit is IMHO a misrepresentation.
> It is
> >> constrained to aim for a certain balance between utility and risk, and
> >> neither extreme is interesting, while possibly still "working".
> >>
> >> Consensus rules are what keeps the system together. You can't simply
> >> switch to new rules on your own, because the rest of the system will
> end up
> >> ignoring you. These rules are there for a reason. You and I may agree
> about
> >> whether the 21M limit is necessary, and disagree about whether we need a
> >> block size limit, but we should be extremely careful with change. My
> >> position as Bitcoin Core developer is that we should merge consensus
> changes
> >> only when they are uncontroversial. Even when you believe a more
> invasive
> >> change is worth it, others may disagree, and the risk from disagreement
> is
> >> likely larger than the effect of a small block size increase by itself:
> the
> >> risk that suddenly every transaction can be spent twice (once on each
> side
> >> of the fork), the very thing that the block chain was designed to
> prevent.
> >>
> >> My personal opinion is that we should aim to do a block size increase
> for
> >> the right reasons. I don't think fear of rising fees or unreliability
> should
> >> be an issue: if fees are being paid, it means someone is willing to pay
> >> them. If people are doing transactions despite being unreliable, there
> must
> >> be a use for them. That may mean that some use cases don't fit anymore,
> but
> >> that is already the case.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Pieter
> >>
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > bitcoin-dev mailing list
> > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
> >
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>

--001a11403fd49d3bc8051d0fd167
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">tell that to people in poor countries, or even in first wo=
rld countries. The competitive thing here is a deal breaker for a lot of pe=
ople who have no clue/don&#39;t care for decentralization, they just want t=
o send money from A to B, like email.</div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br c=
lear=3D"all"><div><div class=3D"gmail_signature"><a href=3D"http://twitter.=
com/gubatron" target=3D"_blank">http://twitter.com/gubatron</a><br></div></=
div>
<br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 5:23 PM, Adam Back v=
ia bitcoin-dev <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.li=
nuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org<=
/a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:=
0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">I dont think Bitcoi=
n being cheaper is the main characteristic of<br>
Bitcoin.=C2=A0 I think the interesting thing is trustlessness - being able<=
br>
to transact without relying on third parties.<br>
<br>
Adam<br>
<br>
<br>
On 11 August 2015 at 22:18, Michael Naber via bitcoin-dev<br>
&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@li=
sts.linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt; wrote:<br>
&gt; The only reason why Bitcoin has grown the way it has, and in fact the =
only<br>
&gt; reason why we&#39;re all even here on this mailing list talking about =
this, is<br>
&gt; because Bitcoin is growing, since it&#39;s &quot;better money than oth=
er money&quot;. One<br>
&gt; of the key characteristics toward that is Bitcoin being inexpensive to=
<br>
&gt; transact. If that characteristic is no longer true, then Bitcoin isn&#=
39;t going<br>
&gt; to grow, and in fact Bitcoin itself will be replaced by better money t=
hat is<br>
&gt; less expensive to transfer.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; So the importance of this issue cannot be overstated -- it&#39;s compe=
te or die<br>
&gt; for Bitcoin -- because people want to transact with global consensus a=
t high<br>
&gt; volume, and because technology exists to service that want, then it&#3=
9;s going<br>
&gt; to be met. This is basic rules of demand and supply. I don&#39;t neces=
sarily<br>
&gt; disagree with your position on only wanting to support uncontroversial=
<br>
&gt; commits, but I think it&#39;s important to get consensus on the critic=
ality of<br>
&gt; the block size issue: do you agree, disagree, or not take a side, and =
why?<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 2:51 PM, Pieter Wuille &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:p=
ieter.wuille@gmail.com">pieter.wuille@gmail.com</a>&gt;<br>
&gt; wrote:<br>
&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 9:37 PM, Michael Naber via bitcoin-dev<br>
&gt;&gt; &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitco=
in-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt; wrote:<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; Hitting the limit in and of itself is not necessarily a bad th=
ing. The<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; question at hand is whether we should constrain that limit bel=
ow what<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; technology is capable of delivering. I&#39;m arguing that not =
only we should<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; not, but that we could not even if we wanted to, since competi=
tion will<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; deliver capacity for global consensus whether it&#39;s in Bitc=
oin or in some<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; other product / fork.<br>
&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; The question is not what the technology can deliver. The question =
is what<br>
&gt;&gt; price we&#39;re willing to pay for that. It is not a boolean &quot=
;at this size,<br>
&gt;&gt; things break, and below it, they work&quot;. A small constant fact=
or increase<br>
&gt;&gt; will unlikely break anything in the short term, but it will come w=
ith higher<br>
&gt;&gt; centralization pressure of various forms. There is discussion abou=
t whether<br>
&gt;&gt; these centralization pressures are significant, but citing that it=
&#39;s<br>
&gt;&gt; artificially constrained under the limit is IMHO a misrepresentati=
on. It is<br>
&gt;&gt; constrained to aim for a certain balance between utility and risk,=
 and<br>
&gt;&gt; neither extreme is interesting, while possibly still &quot;working=
&quot;.<br>
&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; Consensus rules are what keeps the system together. You can&#39;t =
simply<br>
&gt;&gt; switch to new rules on your own, because the rest of the system wi=
ll end up<br>
&gt;&gt; ignoring you. These rules are there for a reason. You and I may ag=
ree about<br>
&gt;&gt; whether the 21M limit is necessary, and disagree about whether we =
need a<br>
&gt;&gt; block size limit, but we should be extremely careful with change. =
My<br>
&gt;&gt; position as Bitcoin Core developer is that we should merge consens=
us changes<br>
&gt;&gt; only when they are uncontroversial. Even when you believe a more i=
nvasive<br>
&gt;&gt; change is worth it, others may disagree, and the risk from disagre=
ement is<br>
&gt;&gt; likely larger than the effect of a small block size increase by it=
self: the<br>
&gt;&gt; risk that suddenly every transaction can be spent twice (once on e=
ach side<br>
&gt;&gt; of the fork), the very thing that the block chain was designed to =
prevent.<br>
&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; My personal opinion is that we should aim to do a block size incre=
ase for<br>
&gt;&gt; the right reasons. I don&#39;t think fear of rising fees or unreli=
ability should<br>
&gt;&gt; be an issue: if fees are being paid, it means someone is willing t=
o pay<br>
&gt;&gt; them. If people are doing transactions despite being unreliable, t=
here must<br>
&gt;&gt; be a use for them. That may mean that some use cases don&#39;t fit=
 anymore, but<br>
&gt;&gt; that is already the case.<br>
&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; --<br>
&gt;&gt; Pieter<br>
&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; _______________________________________________<br>
&gt; bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
&gt; <a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@l=
ists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
&gt; <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>
&gt;<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.=
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/mail=
man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br></div>

--001a11403fd49d3bc8051d0fd167--