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
|
Return-Path: <adam@cypherspace.org>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1AE0F4A8
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 30 Jul 2015 16:48:21 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mout.perfora.net (mout.perfora.net [74.208.4.197])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EE008F2
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 30 Jul 2015 16:48:19 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-qk0-f169.google.com ([209.85.220.169]) by
mrelay.perfora.net (mreueus003) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id
0M3kt5-1Z3b8N4BNZ-00rGfq for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 30 Jul 2015 18:48:19 +0200
Received: by qkfc129 with SMTP id c129so20131300qkf.1
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 30 Jul 2015 09:48:18 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.55.15.20 with SMTP id z20mr70615311qkg.16.1438274898215;
Thu, 30 Jul 2015 09:48:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.96.226.68 with HTTP; Thu, 30 Jul 2015 09:48:18 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CABsx9T1NqBX9Tr8vRCtCeri76e0wrtkvRhEPyG9Advv_3Uqxng@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPg+sBj-wA1DMrwkQRWnzQoB5NR-q=2-5=WDAAUYfSpXRZSTqw@mail.gmail.com>
<CABsx9T1NqBX9Tr8vRCtCeri76e0wrtkvRhEPyG9Advv_3Uqxng@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 18:48:18 +0200
Message-ID: <CALqxMTEWAfwtipkbzaDgsV4C9WjEW2-SE+vuZgiTjeSNxvXEBQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Adam Back <adam@cypherspace.org>
To: Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:cSIhUvNBt8FA6ibFk0NYCa69f1QXN9TvrHPWupeW/o41J7dRGoQ
4e+2gOHLpBeBRw+ZlxtaQhyr68yLnNNXyWQXJ2jK/XatEoQrCSv+S1+vASvo3rh5fEs/02j
lgxkMzbqy8vaz2QjHEtMV0Y6GY0xLwVHhdXEtE2uNf9t98mjO07x+UtWa/QmwEgxdH1NWFn
GoAig8iG44dN2YYJK+b5g==
X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:sjTwkGasLOg=:jJvdYS5Ir430X3gMoloOtR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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, 30 Jul 2015 16:48:21 -0000
That's what is nice about proposals, they are constructive and help
move the conversation forward!
On 30 July 2015 at 18:20, Gavin Andresen via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> Specific comments:
>
> So we'd get to 2MB blocks in the year 2021. I think that is much too
> conservative, and the most likely effect of being that conservative is that
> the main blockchain becomes a settlement network, affordable only for
> large-value transactions.
But, if we agree that 17%/year is consistent with network
improvements, by arguing this is too conservative, does that not mean
you are actually going beyond suggesting throughput increases to
benefit from bandwidth improvements, and explicitly arguing to
borrowing from Bitcoin's already very weak decentralisation to create
more throughput? (Or arguing to subsidise transaction fees if
borrowing so deeply that excess capacity pushes beyond demand).
I think the logical implication of this would be that we should be
first focussing on improving decentralisation, to make security room
to reclaim extra throughput.
(To be clear there are concrete things that can be done and actually
are being done to improve decentralisation via ecosystem education and
mining protocol improvements, but it's safer to wait a few months and
see if those things take effect well).
Secondly in this assumption are you considering that lightning will
likely be online for many years by 2021 and the situation will be
hugely different?
I think an incremental and conservative approach is safer. People can
probably get a lightning prototype running about as fast as a
hard-fork could be safely rolled out.
I do think it is normal to be conservative with security and with $4b
of other peoples money. It's no longer an experimental system to
consider fail fast experiments on.
> I don't think your proposal strikes the right balance between centralization
> of payments (a future where only people running payment hubs, big merchants,
> exchanges, and wallet providers settle on the blockchain) and centralization
> of mining.
What criteria should we be using in your opinion to balance? I think
throughput increases trading off decentralisation would be more
reasonable if decentralisation wasnt in very bad shape.
Adam
|
