Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 342FA97 for ; Fri, 14 Aug 2015 22:57:19 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-ob0-f176.google.com (mail-ob0-f176.google.com [209.85.214.176]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B2F90E2 for ; Fri, 14 Aug 2015 22:57:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: by obbhe7 with SMTP id he7so72853919obb.0 for ; Fri, 14 Aug 2015 15:57:18 -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; bh=00XO6NdUYtxbvwrpxl6JZjlSQNyii5I8kUR2N0wMFpo=; b=mxFk6VY6AShC62UfTCo1sr4FSxSjuxZ+0m4Q3eKsB4eQx2UkDQWqQaB56VsrgA0bVy D8jIVRL7zTWjZfuNfb2GpR4g3ZvLEDbmsjZzz+1PZ05wHipU99h4E1kzD/CZkowGQ8tZ +yV31iCUivEMuImgVhx8zTUVotOxwNxrBalNP9M32N7Xm5Z+vXfz7RQh1SnfCg9vFwj9 5nLCQFh8k2Pk7MklZcrbCMlbdjR5Db0NDR0T2KheSAOwZS2cUG7WpCJWiMvjG+LNChgc zkmyxQb36/N/lpV2rtyvjzm4U3D38vevfdkEx1EzuvOzPASKRy9MlQ2XBL0oMxi3DK3E n5XQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQl1ksn9I4yOC87C+/BY8NXiJkjjJZ1Pw740az84fPkNYtptb0Mbwh1XGMfjLuVLK70kl+vx MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.182.210.234 with SMTP id mx10mr40626071obc.1.1439593038140; Fri, 14 Aug 2015 15:57:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.202.71.85 with HTTP; Fri, 14 Aug 2015 15:57:18 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2015 00:57:18 +0200 Message-ID: From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= To: Ashley Holman Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 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 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2015 22:57:19 -0000 On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 11:52 AM, Ashley Holman via bitcoin-dev wrote: > A concern I have is about security (hash rate) as a function of block size. > > I am assuming that hash rate is correlated with revenue from mining. > > Total revenue from fees as a function of block size should be a curve. On > one extreme of the curve, if blocks are too big, fee revenue tends towards 0 > as there is no competition for block space. At the other extreme, if blocks > are too small, fee revenue is limited only to what the most valuable use > case(s) can afford. Somewhere in the middle there should be a sweet spot > where fee revenue is maximised. It's not a static curve though, it should > change as demand for block space changes. > > Failing to scale the block size as demand grows might be forfeiting > potential miner revenue and hence security. > > (I don't think that should be a primary concern though since > decentralisation should come first, but I'm just pointing it out as a > secondary concern). I believe your concerns are included in: 1) Potential indirect consequence of rising fees. [...] 1.4) Less users than we could have had with a bigger size 1.4.2) Not enough fees when subsidy is lower