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
|
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 07BBB267
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 14 Aug 2015 22:55:10 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-ob0-f177.google.com (mail-ob0-f177.google.com
[209.85.214.177])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 53BFE89
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 14 Aug 2015 22:55:07 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by obnw1 with SMTP id w1so72530781obn.3
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 14 Aug 2015 15:55:06 -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
:content-transfer-encoding;
bh=Px838ggYru3ItNROc9SA8JQueXeP5MjSt3i4xf1jDcE=;
b=PU7txZl4jj62VmrlKtio037G0PtHk+03sjyfunDnGX2irV6yKAV/iH7Rxbu2yACI0X
2sGG/jUXOllVRx9jAdc8fCqfMeRHVOXbz/YWJDj6oWr4buTgWZq4sdRxPofBUXDtsEPZ
ZUQEjLxqgkqKZjTDv4gf9sEwAkPZu61Cah6VJI5RfhVToLOfE7+jivaDuTDfaIvjH55D
zM+4tty+TuouQlFjEENRakZ3W+YQRr9BUj5lQi7v0f2dJXbY3G6wzkJoVT7yfo8QcvnJ
OrTT6T2Ljf/ScLswVOI7B8SveANKxnmtMqL0TaKZhqnztGGbXsv7dlXuVy/cy5ilzUlA
jbXQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQl/v8O9CjLtQ9QC64E3rrdckng0QwuKqx5hL63AdzClxVkxwuZrMNkWpCFJlPQCEPCU1sys
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.60.85.106 with SMTP id g10mr10405590oez.53.1439592906660;
Fri, 14 Aug 2015 15:55:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.202.71.85 with HTTP; Fri, 14 Aug 2015 15:55:06 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CA+BnGuEPbtY8cH+2dq+g8W9Rz-yhftqoVTNa-Ge8eDu=0CoOQw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABm2gDrfB+c1QTZippYYNX-uhcd9NYUcR-VHug6FYtPmSoz4Bw@mail.gmail.com>
<CA+BnGuEPbtY8cH+2dq+g8W9Rz-yhftqoVTNa-Ge8eDu=0CoOQw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2015 00:55:06 +0200
Message-ID: <CABm2gDqzSOQ38Rt4xQgCrNpNsoZLd+nKC8X5z_hQnt9qWOEg=A@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
To: Elliot Olds <elliot.olds@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,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] A summary list of all concerns related to not
rising the block size
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: Fri, 14 Aug 2015 22:55:10 -0000
On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 9:52 PM, Elliot Olds <elliot.olds@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 2:59 AM, Jorge Tim=C3=B3n
> <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>
>> I believe all concerns I've read can be classified in the following
>> groups:
>>
>> > 1) Potential indirect consequence of rising fees.
>
>
> I'd rephrase this as "Consequences of high fees." It's the level of fees
> that is the main issue, not their movement.
I think potential is more general since it allows us to list uncertain
consequences (aren't all consequences just projections and thus
uncertain anyway?).
> Moving from 0 satoshi to 1 satoshi fees makes no real difference.
It is a big difference to me (it may mean policy code has improved a
lot in the process).
Anyway, I'm heppy to hear again that this is not a concern, at some
point I thought this was the ONLY concern, so I was clearly
misinterpreting people's arguments.
> Moving from $0 to $1 fees makes a
> huge difference. Some consequences are indirect, but others are not (the
> first three below are not indirect). Some of the consequences are uncerta=
in,
> but others we can have very high confidence in (again: the first three) a=
nd
> it's only their effect size that can be reasonably disputed.
Let's list them all first and then identify which are more worrying in
the short term.
> Here are lots of reasons that you're missing. High fees do the following:
>
> -Reduce the utility of people using the network, even if the higher fees
> don't reduce their amount of transactions.
"Utility" like "value" is always subjective and very vague. I prefer
to identify more concrete ways in which "utility is reduced".
> -Make some use cases nonviable, depriving people of Bitcoin's decentraliz=
ed
> benefits.
It is clear that not all use cases fit the blockchain, but it's still
unclear which ones don't fit yet.
But the amount of use cases supported is not a valid metric for
decentralization.
In any case, it would be interesting if we could list some concrete
cases that would be lost.
> -Makes level 2 infrastructure like Lightning less valuable by increasing =
the
> minimum value of anchor txns that make sense, and increasing the amount o=
f
> pain suffered when your counterparty misbehaves.
This is correct. Layer 2 can become more expensive in total as well
(it doesn't mean layer 2 doesn't scale though).
I wil add it as 1.3
> -Discourage experimentation with new Bitcoin use cases, making it more
> unlikely that such cases are discovered/improved/popular before Bitcoin's
> security relies on having many users.
Experimentation can be done with worthless testchains. I'm not sure
I'm following on this one.
> -Makes Bitcoin more vulnerable to regulation by keeping its user base fro=
m
> growing, meaning regulators face less pressure to keep it unregulated (se=
e:
> Uber)
Added:
1.4) Less users than we could have had with a bigger size
1.4.1) More regulation pressure
> -Reduce the amount of time we have between now and when tx fees need to p=
ay
> for a significant portion of Bitcoin's security, by keeping the exchange
> rate and thus the value of block rewards low
> (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_of_exchange)
Related to exchange rate.
> -By slowing usage growth, make it less likely that we have a large enough
> base of transactions by the time we need to fund network security via tx
> fees.
Added:
1.4.2) Not enough fees when subsidy is lower
Resulting list:
1) Potential indirect consequence of rising fees.
1.1) Lowest fee transactions (currently free transactions) will become
more unreliable.
1.2) People will migrate to competing systems (PoW altcoins) with lower fee=
s.
1.3) Layer 2 settlements become more expensive
1.4) Less users than we could have had with a bigger size
1.4.1) More regulation pressure
1.4.2) Not enough fees when subsidy is lower
2) Software problem independent of a concrete block size that needs to
be solved anyway, often specific to Bitcoin Core (ie other
implementations, say libbitcoin may not necessarily share these
problems).
2.1) Bitcoin Core's mempool is unbounded in size and can make the program
crash by using too much memory.
2.2) There's no good way to increase the fee of a transaction that is
taking too long to be mined without the "double spending" transaction
with the higher fee being blocked by most nodes which follow Bitcoin
Core's default policy for conflicting spends replacements (aka "first
seen" replacement policy).
|
