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
|
Return-Path: <jameson.lopp@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6B1944A7
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 30 Jul 2015 16:43:59 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-wi0-f174.google.com (mail-wi0-f174.google.com
[209.85.212.174])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 839A6ED
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 30 Jul 2015 16:43:58 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by wicgb10 with SMTP id gb10so251839917wic.1
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 30 Jul 2015 09:43:57 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
:cc:content-type;
bh=Ka75a2W8XLM5p87wKbFkHWAYo1o+6vopYtvZIUwV2O4=;
b=yiP6H2d860L1Fc5crxPUeNcHfkOmVL2M3ziwOiCldSODN3jLRA2X9/ghfkwGhXtonS
vwA8Tp3MYRmvUnyxXNwDM7HO3oLU1j7bX2EUqQNtzezLT50ifddfref/MSCeQRt96WJk
EOtKoAAVZamz8lXHKdptETOxo/U2yzxe5EL+3KmLHRmEOLbExfsnCydZXmqHG6H/xIBr
BArm+gVTyrnZ7/HckMMZ4WNpScxUry7lRTxp9y8jCF9MXHzFAQULoi8KNi4eXbkfMJVP
Niiz7FNHwjHX6NSVNs2xp0PZ27B9x+AE/sJHHej5B2pYnMB56sef6JI4FT+oyP6rBUig
LDkQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.194.209.167 with SMTP id mn7mr86329181wjc.64.1438274636987;
Thu, 30 Jul 2015 09:43:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.27.171.138 with HTTP; Thu, 30 Jul 2015 09:43:56 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CABaSBayrjD+GWj6yJR6Xsbd7QTBECBKemX89sFw2_xQOkH=p-Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPg+sBj-wA1DMrwkQRWnzQoB5NR-q=2-5=WDAAUYfSpXRZSTqw@mail.gmail.com>
<CABm2gDrHjfkC+whh3Vh2LZNdSR1WSAXpNitR-jEdxtbKj7J25g@mail.gmail.com>
<CADL_X_f5nVFCmwNTAtJ6xTdB62wKc+FJdWCHVza9ran2NzaTmw@mail.gmail.com>
<CABaSBayrjD+GWj6yJR6Xsbd7QTBECBKemX89sFw2_xQOkH=p-Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 12:43:56 -0400
Message-ID: <CADL_X_cB_vDAHpmp_Fm1R5U-CzOCHn0cgD4n=ZUzjyDR8gYRDQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Jameson Lopp <jameson.lopp@gmail.com>
To: Bryan Bishop <kanzure@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b3a8954d3c524051c1a6885
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] Block size following technological growth
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: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 16:43:59 -0000
--047d7b3a8954d3c524051c1a6885
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
I fully expect that new layers will someday allow us to facilitate higher
transaction volumes, though I'm concerned about the current state of the
network and the fact that there are no concrete timelines for the rollout
of aforementioned high volume networks.
As for reasoning behind why users will still need to settle on-chain even
with the existence of high volume networks, see these posts:
http://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/message/34119233/
http://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/message/34113067/
Point being, the scalability proposals that are currently being developed
are not magic bullets and still require the occasional on-chain settlement.
Larger blocks will be necessary with or without the actual scalability
enhancements.
- Jameson
On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 12:36 PM, Bryan Bishop <kanzure@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 11:23 AM, Jameson Lopp via bitcoin-dev <
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
>> Stated differently, if the cost or contention of using the network rises
>> to the point of excluding the average user from making transactions, then
>> they probably aren't going to care that they can run a node at trivial cost.
>
>
> That's an interesting claim; so suppose you're living in a future where
> transactions are summarizing millions or billions of other daily
> transactions, possibly with merkle hashes. You think that because a user
> can't individually broadcast his own personal transaction, that the user
> would not be interested in verifying the presence of a summarizing
> transaction in the blockchain? I'm just curious if you could elaborate on
> this effect. Why would I need to see my individual transactions on the
> network, but not see aggregate transactions that include my own?
>
> - Bryan
> http://heybryan.org/
> 1 512 203 0507
>
--047d7b3a8954d3c524051c1a6885
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr">I fully expect that new layers will someday allow us to fa=
cilitate higher transaction volumes, though I'm concerned about the cur=
rent state of the network and the fact that there are no concrete timelines=
for the rollout of aforementioned high volume networks.<div><br></div><div=
>As for reasoning behind why users will still need to settle on-chain even =
with the existence of high volume networks, see these posts:</div><div><br>=
</div><div><a href=3D"http://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/message/3411=
9233/">http://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/message/34119233/</a><br></=
div><div><br></div><div><a href=3D"http://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman=
/message/34113067/">http://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/message/341130=
67/</a><br></div><div><br></div><div>Point being, the scalability proposals=
that are currently being developed are not magic bullets and still require=
the occasional on-chain settlement. Larger blocks will be necessary with o=
r without the actual scalability enhancements.</div><div><br></div><div>- J=
ameson</div></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote"=
>On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 12:36 PM, Bryan Bishop <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a hr=
ef=3D"mailto:kanzure@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">kanzure@gmail.com</a>>=
</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .=
8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div clas=
s=3D"gmail_extra"><span class=3D""><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Thu, Jul 3=
0, 2015 at 11:23 AM, Jameson Lopp via bitcoin-dev <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a =
href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">bit=
coin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote cla=
ss=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;pa=
dding-left:1ex">Stated differently, if the cost or contention of using the =
network rises to the point of excluding the average user from making transa=
ctions, then they probably aren't going to care that they can run a nod=
e at trivial cost.</blockquote></div><br></span>That's an interesting c=
laim; so suppose you're living in a future where transactions are summa=
rizing millions or billions of other daily transactions, possibly with merk=
le hashes. You think that because a user can't individually broadcast h=
is own personal transaction, that the user would not be interested in verif=
ying the presence of a summarizing transaction in the blockchain? I'm j=
ust curious if you could elaborate on this effect. Why would I need to see =
my individual transactions on the network, but not see aggregate transactio=
ns that include my own?<br><div><br></div><div>- Bryan<br><a href=3D"http:/=
/heybryan.org/" target=3D"_blank">http://heybryan.org/</a><br><a href=3D"te=
l:1%20512%20203%200507" value=3D"+15122030507" target=3D"_blank">1 512 203 =
0507</a></div>
</div></div>
</blockquote></div><br></div>
--047d7b3a8954d3c524051c1a6885--
|
