path: root/e7/2a8049b3fd7523a628501c45bf458b70a81fb0

Return-Path: <elombrozo@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
	[172.17.192.35])
	by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 39100323
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Sat, 27 Jun 2015 02:18:25 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-pa0-f53.google.com (mail-pa0-f53.google.com
	[209.85.220.53])
	by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9F5BBE3
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Sat, 27 Jun 2015 02:18:24 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by padev16 with SMTP id ev16so76975236pad.0
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Fri, 26 Jun 2015 19:18:24 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
	h=subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc
	:message-id:references:to;
	bh=hkyfIjnRMxcBriVuN9R6GNdM3efbRa3KJ+pyORFLKfQ=;
	b=vEIV6lDkiPYAwnlk22tz0FXlMQpXn3klNgPbc7kmFfyXWPj7/GF0GmlwGKuoGg4QAz
	zYNugba8PWy9126GiC+PSiphYgiIEAMcKD99/TbdDzVWnYHixGbmj92DovxhJ+PjrEGG
	7iVrbKG7mou/8KAvxFX8L46vFLgFjAM8l9YTfEIeGnSAW6QQ88Ph4snMYgzekEW5Ivaz
	CGqTeZItVfxfDxoL4TfmvIwEQFt9itQN+n5mVqAZSLW1R1QQzpiCOy/+NJbBk5TaeNqo
	oCp3mmPFQe2WV+a/YGJkGWciEKVyKOeJZpDd0kOPFBjeESjmHsVtdqRHm/esMyG7GIV8
	BIbw==
X-Received: by 10.70.138.8 with SMTP id qm8mr8973525pdb.96.1435371504368;
	Fri, 26 Jun 2015 19:18:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.102] (cpe-76-167-237-202.san.res.rr.com.
	[76.167.237.202]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id
	qs8sm34631373pbc.38.2015.06.26.19.18.22
	(version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128);
	Fri, 26 Jun 2015 19:18:23 -0700 (PDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2098\))
Content-Type: multipart/signed;
	boundary="Apple-Mail=_353D3AD3-5AC9-48E7-8B36-9E33D23E79B8";
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.5b6
From: Eric Lombrozo <elombrozo@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <558DB997.4030209@phauna.org>
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2015 19:18:20 -0700
Message-Id: <2107342B-1D9E-4575-B7E4-3B69D51B1A17@gmail.com>
References: <CAPg+sBjOj9eXiDG0F6G54SVKkStF_1HRu2wzGqtFF5X_NAWy4w@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADm_Wca+ow4pMzN7SyKjsMdFo0wuUerYYjf5xKs5G_2Q2PzMmA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPg+sBg=sn7djO_8H16NDg7S7m7_0eTcrgLVofMWQ2ANz+jw9w@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADm_WcbQog_UCV=JPHyqTRxKbaGY7jedtHE_D8jJSe_thMg05w@mail.gmail.com>
	<558DB997.4030209@phauna.org>
To: Owen Gunden <ogunden@phauna.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2098)
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
	DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE,
	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@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] The need for larger blocks
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: Sat, 27 Jun 2015 02:18:25 -0000


--Apple-Mail=_353D3AD3-5AC9-48E7-8B36-9E33D23E79B8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=utf-8

I=E2=80=99ve been pondering this whole scale issue considerably=E2=80=A6an=
d am left with the conclusion that blockchains are ultimately dispute =
resolution mechanisms. The vast majority of crypto negotiation will be =
taking place at levels lesser than global consensus in the future - =
global consensus is just far too expensive to require for every single =
cappuccino. There really is little need to take most cases =
globally=E2=80=A6unless the participants disagree. I=E2=80=99ve =
commented in other places that blockchains are essentially a =E2=80=9Cfix=E2=
=80=9D to the prisoner=E2=80=99s dilemma - they make cooperation the =
equilibrium strategy.

Regardless of whatever linear factor we scale the blockchain by, it is =
simple math to see that any exponential growth (even if for a short =
time) in usage will overwhelm the current network. If we ever intend to =
take bitcoin mainstream, we will most likely experience at least a short =
time of exponential growth=E2=80=A6at least until we either reach an =
inherent limitation or until we saturate. As Pieter said earlier, FAPP =
right now the demand for payments might as well be infinite. We=E2=80=99re=
 nowhere near the ability to service it all.

The block size issue is really a usability issue at this point. There =
are two fundamental things we need to solve:

1) There=E2=80=99s no model for how we=E2=80=99ll introduce a fee =
market, even though the design of Bitcoin fundamentally depends on fees =
for its survival (at least in the current form of the design.)

2) There=E2=80=99s no mechanism for how to perform fee bidding and =
estimation. Most wallets simply have no way to do this without serious =
usability problems.



If we=E2=80=99re going to talk about block fees, let=E2=80=99s keep it =
in the context of these relevant issues and not confound it with the =
scalability issue=E2=80=A6these are two very different issues.


- Eric Lombrozo


> On Jun 26, 2015, at 1:44 PM, Owen Gunden <ogunden@phauna.org> wrote:
>=20
> On 06/26/2015 02:23 PM, Jeff Garzik wrote:
>> Failure to plan now for a hard fork increase 6(?) months in the =
future
>> produces that lumpy, unpredictable market behavior.
>>=20
>> The market has baked in the years-long behavior of low fees.  =46rom =
the
>> market PoV, inaction does lead to precisely that, a sudden change =
over
>> the span of a few months.
>=20
> Which market participants are you referring to?
>=20
> I entered the bitcoin market with open eyes, aware that it faces hard =
scalability challenges by design. I was also aware that because of these =
challenges, eventually transaction fees would have to rise.
>=20
> Nevertheless, I made the decision to invest because of the utility I =
gain from the anti-censorship, privacy, control, store of value, and =
security aspects of bitcoin -- many of which stem from decentralization, =
which others have demonstrated to be linked to the block size.
>=20
> On the other hand, there are undoubtedly other market participants who =
heard hype about "zero fee transactions to anywhere in the world", =
believed it would scale, and made (mal)investments as a result.
>=20
> As for how many market participants of each flavor, and how deep their =
respective pockets, who knows? My experience in markets has lead me to =
realize that it's never wise to assume I know what "the market" does and =
doesn't know. If Jeff Garzik is right about what the market has priced =
in, then yes, filled blocks will be rocking the boat. But who's to say =
that the smartest, biggest investors and traders don't already see this =
scaling problem, and have already priced it in? In this case, a sudden =
large increase in the block size is actually rocking the boat. The point =
is, you can't know either way, so trying to pre-empt the market in this =
way is erroneous.
>=20
> Regarding entrepreneurial investment specifically, why should we favor =
the entrepreneurs who require a more centralized bitcoin over those who =
were more considerate of the possibility of rising transaction fees when =
making their business models?
>=20
> In my mind, we should favor neither, which is why I'm basically in =
agreement with Pieter that this sense of "emergency" shouldn't really be =
a part of the debate.
>=20
> Not that I'm taking a stand on the specific block size issue either =
way. I just think this particular line of reasoning (presupposing what =
information the market has and has not already baked in) is unsound.
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev


--Apple-Mail=_353D3AD3-5AC9-48E7-8B36-9E33D23E79B8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename=signature.asc
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature;
	name=signature.asc
Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org
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=D8/a
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--Apple-Mail=_353D3AD3-5AC9-48E7-8B36-9E33D23E79B8--