MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CABsx9T2aZHe5382_fC7bEG2OFPadS3p0jjaAD8FW7p36XS7tcA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABsx9T16fH+56isq95m4+QWsKwP==tf75ep8ghnEcBoV4OtZJA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPg+sBgOt=qhQVZv5P-4mcD75=L4PKgOfRqhyB6FZdSYQajrwQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABsx9T10y6-=c7Qg6jysnf38wRX3NA3wWozxGfE+mEYJvPeqWA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABm2gDpwMQzju+Gsoe3qMi60MPr7OAiSuigy3RdA1xh-SwFzbw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABsx9T2aZHe5382_fC7bEG2OFPadS3p0jjaAD8FW7p36XS7tcA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2015 16:34:55 +0200
Message-ID: <CAPg+sBiwTQNTCBQN_idGGH4yu-mEX-r9QpDoWqR3=iKvMqg4hw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>
To: Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b86eeaeae1d55051cf5e3f4
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Fees and the block-finding process
Precedence: list

--047d7b86eeaeae1d55051cf5e3f4
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 4:12 PM, Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
> Executive summary: when networks get over-saturated, they become
> unreliable.  Unreliable is bad.
>
> Unreliable and expensive is extra bad, and that's where we're headed
> without an increase to the max block size.
>

I think I see your point of view. You see demand for on-chain transactions
as a single number that grows with adoption. Once the transaction creation
rate grows close to the capacity, transactions will become unreliable, and
you consider this a bad thing.

And if you see Bitcoin as a payment system where guaranteed time to
confirmation is a feature, I fully agree. But I think that is an
unrealistic dream. It only seems reliable because of lack of use. It costs
1.5 BTC per day to create enough transactions to fill the block chain at
the minimum relay fee, and a small multiple of that at actual fee levels.
Assuming that rate remains similar with an increased block size, that
remains cheap.

If you want transactions to be cheap, it will also be cheap to make them
unreliable.

-- 
Pieter

--047d7b86eeaeae1d55051cf5e3f4
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 4:12 PM, Gavin Andresen <span dir=
=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:gavinandresen@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">g=
avinandresen@gmail.com</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><div class=3D"gmail_extra">=
<div class=3D"gmail_quote"><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margi=
n:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><br><div dir=3D"l=
tr">Executive summary: when networks get over-saturated, they become unreli=
able.=C2=A0 Unreliable is bad.<div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br></div><div cla=
ss=3D"gmail_extra">Unreliable and expensive is extra bad, and that&#39;s wh=
ere we&#39;re headed without an increase to the max block size.</div></div>=
</blockquote><div><br></div><div>I think I see your point of view. You see =
demand for on-chain transactions as a single number that grows with adoptio=
n. Once the transaction creation rate grows close to the capacity, transact=
ions will become unreliable, and you consider this a bad thing.<br><br></di=
v><div class=3D"gmail_quote">And if you see Bitcoin as a payment system whe=
re guaranteed time to confirmation is a feature, I fully agree. But I think=
 that is an unrealistic dream. It only seems reliable because of lack of us=
e. It costs 1.5 BTC per day to create enough transactions to fill the block=
 chain at the minimum relay fee, and a small multiple of that at actual fee=
 levels. Assuming that rate remains similar with an increased block size, t=
hat remains cheap.<br><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_quote">If you want tran=
sactions to be cheap, it will also be cheap to make them unreliable.<br><br=
>-- <br></div><div class=3D"gmail_quote">Pieter<br><br></div></div></div></=
div>

--047d7b86eeaeae1d55051cf5e3f4--