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
|
Return-Path: <kfriece@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ADF4D910
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 19 Aug 2015 12:24:30 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-la0-f47.google.com (mail-la0-f47.google.com
[209.85.215.47])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DFBDD1DA
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 19 Aug 2015 12:24:29 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by lalv9 with SMTP id v9so1863553lal.0
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 19 Aug 2015 05:24:28 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type;
bh=GJAtsNjdq2IjkpqdbyNYuo0AmYO8LVhHqVdZMRkpuUQ=;
b=fZdifgosBIKCghZM8P/ZUEQC16avXkojpFMJMDLI4cszG23zcgNBd+8h4xGkRDOWCt
EuuoOJSOiTdmIz41LYgCV3rzHzY/qHyt+fjnRP7jPqo8DhdUJ29RHiK6dHoH7mwWaoOX
scBTsgPghSfWKV65ACurc5rDMZoCIitASCWJRiohVA9KNqGByTRkrWINXfVIlSyYE0jx
usokMF+oDWknFYqXklaBDjZU0LSH12xbfdAtOagYAuS02ilMYVaRySuuU20Ty7BuCNiB
P2U9DhpAPz6ic2Sk8JCxJgDme6I+dGXLsbSqS6h/OIYs/RBpybE59zvWrYssfrfuyJNl
5Kgw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.112.13.166 with SMTP id i6mr11027019lbc.50.1439987068246;
Wed, 19 Aug 2015 05:24:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.25.62.147 with HTTP; Wed, 19 Aug 2015 05:24:28 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2015 08:24:28 -0400
Message-ID: <CAKujSOHGPTy-A3TUKKxO4kJYhWaReqyni2aE0CvK0ON8tixNNw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ken Friece <kfriece@gmail.com>
To: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c3c9b6af21fd051da91d30
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_20,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
Subject: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin Core versus XT observations
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, 19 Aug 2015 12:24:30 -0000
--001a11c3c9b6af21fd051da91d30
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
1.) Most people are running XT as a vote for bigger blocks and not because
they specifically support BIP101. If Core supported bigger blocks, most XT
users would switch back to Core and XT would die.
2.) In this high stakes game of poker, XT just went all in, but Core still
has the far better hand. There are many, many scaling solutions Core could
adopt that would appease XT users enough to kill XT. Don't let perfect be
the enemy of good. The real question is whether or not anyone can provide
enough Core leadership to reach "consensus". The longer it takes for Core
to reach "consensus", the stronger XT gets.
3.) Bitcoin market price has a far greater mining centralizing effect than
larger blocks ever will. Right now, miners with reasonably efficient
hardware and energy costs (.5W/GH mining hardware, 10 cents per kilowatt
hour power, $250 BTC price) spend about half of their mining income on
electricity. If the total Bitcoin market cap is under ~5 billion at the
next halving in July 2016, it's game over for all but the most efficient
(large) miners. The mining centralization that may occur with 8MB blocks in
2016 is nothing compared to the centralization that will occur if the total
Bitcoin market cap does not grow substantially between now and the next
halving.
4.) Investors hate uncertainty, and the blocksize issue is adding a lot of
uncertainty right now, which makes the mining nightmare scenario outlined
above more likely. The entire ecosystem needs time to adjust and grow once
a Core scaling solution is adopted. Hopefully this issue will be revolved
well before the next halving in July 2016 so the market has time to adjust
and grow again.
5.) Not-BitcoinXT is a really terrible idea. Mike has proven time and time
again that he will not blink or back down. The chances of Not-BitcoinXT
gaining 25% of the hashrate are pretty much nil, so in effect, all
Not-BitcoinXT will do is help XT reach the 75% threshold sooner and end up
putting more people on the losing side of the fork.
--001a11c3c9b6af21fd051da91d30
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr"><div><div><div><div><br></div>1.) Most people are running =
XT as a vote for bigger blocks and not because they specifically support BI=
P101. If Core supported bigger blocks, most XT users would switch back to C=
ore and XT would die.<br><br></div>2.) In this high stakes game of poker, X=
T just went all in, but Core still has the far better hand. There are many,=
many scaling solutions Core could adopt that would appease XT users enough=
to kill XT. Don't let perfect be the enemy of good. The real question =
is whether or not anyone can provide enough Core leadership to reach "=
consensus". The longer it takes for Core to reach "consensus"=
;, the stronger XT gets.<br><br></div>3.) Bitcoin market price has a far gr=
eater mining centralizing effect than larger blocks ever will. Right now, m=
iners with reasonably efficient hardware and energy costs (.5W/GH mining ha=
rdware, 10 cents per kilowatt hour power, $250 BTC price) spend about half =
of their mining income on electricity. If the total Bitcoin market cap is u=
nder ~5 billion at the next halving in July 2016, it's game over for al=
l but the most efficient (large) miners. The mining centralization that may=
occur with 8MB blocks in 2016 is nothing compared to the centralization th=
at will occur if the total Bitcoin market cap does not grow substantially b=
etween now and the next halving.<br><br></div>4.) Investors hate uncertaint=
y, and the blocksize issue is adding a lot of uncertainty right now, which =
makes the mining nightmare scenario outlined above more likely. The entire =
ecosystem needs time to adjust and grow once a Core scaling solution is ado=
pted. Hopefully this issue will be revolved well before the next halving in=
July 2016 so the market has time to adjust and grow again.<br><br>5.) Not-=
BitcoinXT is a really terrible idea. Mike has proven time and time again th=
at he will not blink or back down. The chances of Not-BitcoinXT gaining 25%=
of the hashrate are pretty much nil, so in effect, all Not-BitcoinXT will =
do is help XT reach the 75% threshold sooner and end up putting more people=
on the losing side of the fork. <br></div>
--001a11c3c9b6af21fd051da91d30--
|
