Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D9C5D8C7 for ; Tue, 4 Aug 2015 12:19:40 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-la0-f54.google.com (mail-la0-f54.google.com [209.85.215.54]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ACB4412A for ; Tue, 4 Aug 2015 12:19:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: by labsr2 with SMTP id sr2so5863749lab.2 for ; Tue, 04 Aug 2015 05:19:38 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=qTkAHf8Mx0OhO5ywQ80keceuTgtkTvcbLWxATTRdNIA=; b=hKts86MoE8+EF1c9ooct+89MlGHEFcZKr3ZQ6RmJt5YaNIhPkVTJngzjywYgciPGQ9 XDrTt4+1ovlEBiA48FA8B6yP5KwVD/EBTl/gfH5wVgJCM8DCRwTc9mj9Hz9FVxdB7FEm uTATDArVZmpx3Ldmfxh91ZwJdeqhexMxDQSEQpx5VVvlx/YvNwiLZSx3s8+j4TL6BXLk yMq0udPoWTCxJuime5fzXApPEA8JnsFwV412YU6wNHreBbVC8wvVl8iVrfG+7FjzVxfa a3oLltzs8nvkhfTeqbPXW0jZiTevw3T5+FioWbdK4auEwzGOBJlTrUlGv3ifWJLdy2i2 8ZmA== X-Received: by 10.152.10.148 with SMTP id i20mr2986947lab.63.1438690777986; Tue, 04 Aug 2015 05:19:37 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.25.22.25 with HTTP; Tue, 4 Aug 2015 05:19:18 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: Hector Chu Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2015 13:19:18 +0100 Message-ID: To: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11331df0c37d6e051c7b4c66 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 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Aug 2015 12:19:41 -0000 --001a11331df0c37d6e051c7b4c66 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 4 August 2015 at 12:59, Jorge Tim=C3=B3n wrote: > That is not my position. Again, I don't know what the right blocksize > for the short term is (I don't think anybody does). > You have no position (i.e. neutral). In other words, keeping the existing limit. > Therefore how the change can affect mining centralization must be the > main concern, instead of (also artificial) projections about usage > growth (no matter how organic their curves look). > The degree of mining decentralization is only one of many concerns. Users' main concern is timely confirmation of low-fee transactions. Miners' concern is the amount of profit they make. > Also I don't think "hitting the limit" must be necessarily harmful and > if it is, I don't understand why hitting it at 1MB will be more > harmful than hitting it at 2MB, 8MB or 8GB. > The limit won't even get to be hit, because all the users that get thrown out of Bitcoin will have moved over to a system supporting a larger block size. I don't know where you get your "majority" from or what it even means > (majority of users, majority of the coins, of miners?) > The majority which the miners are beholden to is the economic majority. https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Economic_majority > But there's something I'm missing something there...why my position > doesn't matter if it's not a majority? > Your position is only one of many and it does not carry excess weight to the others. Individually it won't matter, because you can't control the implementation that other people run. > How is what the the majority has been told it's best an objective argumen= t? > Don't fight the market. The way the system is designed, the miners will follow along with what the economic majority have decided. So if you say 8, I must ask, why not 9? > Why 9 MB is not safe for mining centralization but 8 MB is? > 8MB has simply been the focal point for this debate. 9MB is also safe if 8MB is, but I suppose the opponents will be even less happy with 9 than with 8, and we don't want to unnecessarily increase the conflict. It seems like the rationale it's always "the bigger the better" and > the only limitation is what a few people concerned with mining > centralization (while they still have time to discuss this) are > willing to accept. If that's the case, then there won't be effectively > any limit in the long term and Bitcoin will probably fail in its > decentralization goals. > A one-time increase to 8MB is safer than a dynamically growing limit over time for exactly this reason. Admittedly whenever the next debate to increase the block size over 8MB happens it will be even more painful and non-obvious, but that is the safety check to prevent unbounded block size increase. --001a11331df0c37d6e051c7b4c66 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On 4= August 2015 at 12:59, Jorge Tim=C3=B3n <jtimon@jtimon.cc> wr= ote:
That is not my position. Again, I do= n't know what the right blocksize
for the short term is (I don't think anybody does).

You have no position (i.e. neutral). In other words, keepi= ng the existing limit.
=C2=A0
Therefore how the change can affect mining centralization must be the
main concern, instead of (also artificial) projections about usage
growth (no matter how organic their curves look).

=
The degree of mining decentralization is only one of many concer= ns. Users' main concern is timely confirmation of low-fee transactions.= Miners' concern is the amount of profit they make.
=C2=A0
Also I don't think "hitting the limit" must be necessarily ha= rmful and
if it is, I don't understand why hitting it at 1MB will be more
harmful than hitting it at 2MB, 8MB or 8GB.

=
The limit won't even get to be hit, because all the users that get= thrown out of Bitcoin will have moved over to a system supporting a larger= block size.

I don't= know where you get your "majority" from or what it even means (majority of users, majority of the coins, of miners?)

The majority which the miners are beholden to is the econom= ic majority.
=C2=A0<= /div>
But there's something I'm missing something there...why my position=
doesn't matter if it's not a majority?

Your position is only one of many and it does not carry excess weig= ht to the others. Individually it won't matter, because you can't c= ontrol the implementation that other people run.
=C2=A0
How is what the the majority has been told it's best an objective argum= ent?

Don't fight the market. The wa= y the system is designed, the miners will follow along with what the econom= ic majority have decided.

It seems like= the rationale it's always "the bigger the better" and
the only limitation is what a few people concerned with mining
centralization (while they still have time to discuss this) are
willing to accept. If that's the case, then there won't be effectiv= ely
any limit in the long term and Bitcoin will probably fail in its
decentralization goals.

A one-time incr= ease to 8MB is safer than a dynamically growing limit over time for exactly= this reason. Admittedly whenever the next debate to increase the block siz= e over 8MB happens it will be even more painful and non-obvious, but that i= s the safety check to prevent unbounded block size increase.
--001a11331df0c37d6e051c7b4c66--