Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 74.125.82.51 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=74.125.82.51; envelope-from=alex.mizrahi@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-wg0-f51.google.com; 
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <COL402-EAS257D9744762445A974BDA85CDC80@phx.gbl>
References: <COL402-EAS257D9744762445A974BDA85CDC80@phx.gbl>
Date: Sun, 31 May 2015 03:32:34 +0300
Message-ID: <CAE28kUQ8HYFAjsUXrah0CoRY9xJBVx7jo8RFgpVsP11ppThXtw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Alex Mizrahi <alex.mizrahi@gmail.com>
To: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b873dc478c848051755d857
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Block Size Increase Requirements
Precedence: list

--047d7b873dc478c848051755d857
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

>
> Stop trying to dictate block growth limits.  Block size will be determined
> by competition between miners and availability of transactions, not through
> hard-coded limits.
>
Do you even game theory, bro? It doesn't work that way.

Mike Hearn described the problem in this article:
https://medium.com/@octskyward/hashing-7d04a887acc8

But the solution he's proposing is ridiculously bad and unsound: he expects
business owners to donate large sums of money towards mining. If it comes
to this, what sane business owner will donate, say, 100 BTC to miners
instead of seeking some alternatives? Proof-of-stake coins are already
there. I'm well aware of theoretical issues with PoS security, but those
theoretical issues aren't as bad as donation-funded cryptocurrency security.

But you know what works? Mining fees + block size limit.
Users and merchants are interested in their transactions being confirmed,
but block size limit won't allow it to turn into a race to bottom.
This is actually game-theoretically sound.


>   I see now the temporary 1MB limit was a mistake.  It should have gone in
> as a dynamic limit that scales with average block size.
>
This means that miners will control it, and miners couldn't care less about
things like decentralization and about problems of ordinary users. This
means that in this scenario Bitcoin will be 100% controlled by few huge-ass
mining operations.

Possibly a single operation. We already saw GHASH.IO using 51% of total
hashpower. Is that what you want?

Miners are NOT benevolent. This was already demonstrated. They are greedy.

--047d7b873dc478c848051755d857
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><blo=
ckquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left=
-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;paddi=
ng-left:1ex"><p dir=3D"ltr">Stop trying to dictate block growth limits.=C2=
=A0 Block size will be determined by competition between miners and availab=
ility of transactions, not through hard-coded limits.</p></blockquote><div>=
Do you even game theory, bro? It doesn&#39;t work that way.</div><div><br><=
/div><div>Mike Hearn described the problem in this article:</div><div><a hr=
ef=3D"https://medium.com/@octskyward/hashing-7d04a887acc8">https://medium.c=
om/@octskyward/hashing-7d04a887acc8</a><br></div><div><br></div><div>But th=
e solution he&#39;s proposing is ridiculously bad and unsound: he expects b=
usiness owners to donate large sums of money towards mining. If it comes to=
 this, what sane business owner will donate, say, 100 BTC to miners instead=
 of seeking some alternatives? Proof-of-stake coins are already there. I=
9;m well aware of theoretical issues with PoS security, but those theoretic=
al issues aren&#39;t as bad as donation-funded cryptocurrency security.</di=
v><div><br></div><div>But you know what works? Mining fees + block size lim=
it.</div><div>Users and merchants are interested in their transactions bein=
g confirmed, but block size limit won&#39;t allow it to turn into a race to=
 bottom.</div><div>This is actually game-theoretically sound.</div><div>=C2=
=A0<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px =
0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-=
style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><p dir=3D"ltr">=C2=A0 I see now the temporary=
 1MB limit was a mistake.=C2=A0 It should have gone in as a dynamic limit t=
hat scales with average block size.</p></blockquote><div>This means that mi=
ners will control it, and miners couldn&#39;t care less about things like d=
ecentralization and about problems of ordinary users. This means that in th=
is scenario Bitcoin will be 100% controlled by few huge-ass mining operatio=
ns.</div><div><br></div><div>Possibly a single operation. We already saw <a=
 href=3D"http://GHASH.IO">GHASH.IO</a> using 51% of total hashpower. Is tha=
t what you want?</div><div><br></div><div>Miners are NOT benevolent. This w=
as already demonstrated. They are greedy.</div></div></div></div>

--047d7b873dc478c848051755d857--