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
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
|
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 788908E6
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 6 Aug 2015 15:25:50 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-wi0-f181.google.com (mail-wi0-f181.google.com
[209.85.212.181])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 76DD2168
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 6 Aug 2015 15:25:49 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by wibxm9 with SMTP id xm9so27325000wib.0
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 06 Aug 2015 08:25:48 -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=OwpAx6rvEgtZiGiOXSrOLU0zRm48K04j9fi5inKXUvI=;
b=KhIMoLpMN2EOj7YcS03HG6gmRx+xkKgnIah0bYVGPst7JJ+JPWjDDLr9Jh8bhwXNyZ
zUnH+a3pC5p2BzbyyuESA2v05krxP+K8g/FXmjio4H+fs4jM7m8A6yxiYtq7AyV3abZz
Nsar4Km8PX0/hVffHcAEy7pxxjUj50OU7Z0ERAvlYVvRionC4HVLPr855uw9ftxzwHJf
YugQGXQ/PebP8hQdyELwod34vVRiwOWbn8HMfyBcnepX4VXAuInGggTTq1zqO/kn4wBD
CdIyffQ5b+I1FQnEfXU+U/fu7sGMLz9g819o33ZfDcztqKQ6V/ny53EiVWHvhNrD7OvP
K9kQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmVLDYdd7SRdEfgruQvCQofSvglJCxIgN6i9ZOV+tQqs1mVTky+TCvsa4iLcCF9GZk/8erB
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.194.238.39 with SMTP id vh7mr4233713wjc.109.1438874748131;
Thu, 06 Aug 2015 08:25:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.194.31.230 with HTTP; Thu, 6 Aug 2015 08:25:47 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CABsx9T22KUcbRb4ZfRDikbxK05pqWY1=uvYo10toWA-JwGa-PQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPg+sBj-wA1DMrwkQRWnzQoB5NR-q=2-5=WDAAUYfSpXRZSTqw@mail.gmail.com>
<CABsx9T1NqBX9Tr8vRCtCeri76e0wrtkvRhEPyG9Advv_3Uqxng@mail.gmail.com>
<CAPg+sBjwVxYTOn3+bwahHGSGpBh5BCh5b4OOFkw_2x97YZSFPQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CA+w+GKS_wDDgf=HjPgD5QZ_wdTRg7i_oYUgBRmh9HpufETAP=w@mail.gmail.com>
<CABm2gDqvpWdHdjo1OBzbw-6ivu5DEGcfvK8duc3-KAjsSeWapA@mail.gmail.com>
<CA+w+GKRPPcgCO0pBP2PjKGU49tWuBoF1vRJzY+4fWn71HOVDPw@mail.gmail.com>
<CABm2gDqV1NdHJZBmUWX3AxVYy6ErU7AB-wsWgGzbiTL1twdq6g@mail.gmail.com>
<CA+w+GKTLBWj6b4ppwrmnXb_gybYFcrX7haLBSdCnMaijy2An4w@mail.gmail.com>
<CABm2gDpWPhYNh=g-ZXCsfe-aPq=N6NKSWKP9kr-KtPVrWAxB7Q@mail.gmail.com>
<CAAO2FKHsczkwwqO87cJFtxBp9JE=vf=GcxLx37GpRUkPq8VGHQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CABm2gDpp5+hkHmd6op6PPW658siKoEMRDfTWiEHHM7vJSLDhyA@mail.gmail.com>
<CA+BnGuFNOjzLaiPPnUSi-rkU94UMgmP30Si8N3oBSYG0q8j-_w@mail.gmail.com>
<CABm2gDoNbhc1=kgc0F+wSm33hTmRmmptk-XcaZxsm=6iJkWu=w@mail.gmail.com>
<CABsx9T22KUcbRb4ZfRDikbxK05pqWY1=uvYo10toWA-JwGa-PQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2015 17:25:47 +0200
Message-ID: <CABm2gDo6bpWst-8=pr4+et+jrwNX5bt5CwSTsm5OSj1pncayjA@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
To: Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@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] 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, 06 Aug 2015 15:25:50 -0000
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 3:40 PM, Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com> wr=
ote:
> On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 9:26 PM, Jorge Tim=C3=B3n
> <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>
>> This is a much more reasonable position. I wish this had been starting
>> point of this discussion instead of "the block size limit must be
>> increased as soon as possible or bitcoin will fail".
>
>
> It REALLY doesn't help the debate when you say patently false statements
> like that.
I'm pretty sure that I can quote Mike Hearn with a sentence extremely
similar to that in this forum or in some of his blog posts (not in
https://medium.com/@octskyward/crash-landing-f5cc19908e32 at a first
glance...).
But yeah, what people said in the past is not very important: people
change their minds (they even acknowledge their mistake some times).
What interests me more it's what people think now.
I don't want to put words in your mouth and you are more than welcome
to correct what I think you think with what you really think.
All I'm trying to do is framing your fears properly.
If I say "all fears related to not raising the block size limit in the
short term can be summarized as a fear of fees rising in the short
term".
Am I correct? Am I missing some other argument?
Of course, problems that need to be solved regardless of the block
size (like an unbounded mempool) should not be considered for this
discussion.
> My first blog post on this issue is here:
> http://gavinandresen.ninja/why-increasing-the-max-block-size-is-urgent
>
> ... and I NEVER say "Bitcoin will fail". I say:
>
> "If the number of transactions waiting gets large enough, the end result
> will be an over-saturated network, busy doing nothing productive. I don=
=E2=80=99t
> think that is likely=E2=80=93 it is more likely people just stop using Bi=
tcoin
> because transaction confirmation becomes increasingly unreliable."
If you pay high enough fees your transactions will be likely mined in
the next block.
So this seems to be reducible to the "fees rising" concern unless I am
missing something.
> So please stop with the over-the-top claims about what "the other side"
> believe, there are enough of those (on both sides of the debate) on reddi=
t.
> I'd really like to focus on how to move forward, and how best to resolve
> difficult questions like this in the future.
I think I would have a much better understanding of what "the other
side" thinks if I ever got an answer to a couple of very simple
questions I have been repeating ad nausea:
1) If "not now" when will it be a good time to let fees rise above zero?
2) When will you consider a size to be too dangerous for centralization?
In other words, why 20 GB would have been safe but 21 GB wouldn't have
been (or the respective maximums and respective +1 for each block
increase proposal)?
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 4:21 PM, Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com> wr=
ote:
> What is bad is artificially limiting or centrally controlling the supply =
of
> that space.
3) Does this mean that you would be in favor of completely removing
the consensus rule that limits mining centralization by imposing an
artificial (like any other consensus rule) block size maximum?
I've been insistently repeating this question too.
Admittedly, it would be a great disappointment if your answer to this
question is "yes": that can only mean that either you don't understand
how the consensus rule limits mining centralization or that you don't
care about mining centralization at all.
If you really want things to move forward, please, prove it by
answering these questions so that we don't have to imagine what the
answers are (because what we imagine is probably much worse than your
actual answers).
I'm more than willing to stop trying to imagine what "big block
advocates" think, but I need your answers from the "big block
advocates".
Asking repeatedly doesn't seem to be effective. So I will answer the
questions myself in the worse possible way I think a "big block
advocate" could answer them.
Feel free to replace my stupid answers with your own:
----------------------- (FICTION ANSWERS [given the lack of real answers])
3) Does this mean that you would be in favor of completely removing
the consensus rule that limits mining centralization by imposing an
artificial (like any other consensus rule) block size maximum?
Yes, I would remove the rule because I don't care about mining centralizati=
on.
2) When will you consider a size to be too dangerous for centralization?
In other words, why 20 GB would have been safe but 21 GB wouldn't have
been (or the respective maximums and respective +1 for each block
increase proposal)?
Never, as said I don't care about mining centralization.
I thought users and Bitcoin companies would agree with a 20 GB limit
hardfork with proper lobbying, but I certainly prefer 21 GB.
From 1 MB to infinity, the bigger the better, always.
1) If "not now" when will it be a good time to let fees rise above zero?
Never. Fees are just an excuse, the real goal is making Bitcoin centralized=
.
------------------------
I'm quite confident that you will have better answers than those.
Please, let me know what you think.
|
