Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 002AE8D8 for ; Fri, 7 Aug 2015 18:57:46 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-ob0-f179.google.com (mail-ob0-f179.google.com [209.85.214.179]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B8F88A6 for ; Fri, 7 Aug 2015 18:57:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: by obbfr1 with SMTP id fr1so48807092obb.1 for ; Fri, 07 Aug 2015 11:57:44 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=3w21E0kv3grLSuIH0ThVFYLSlF6JsW0q7Ca9GfxmaVU=; b=KeQyZOqjYvxpgnn4P3rsWdLDubVJViNzpQYtCS11wVd2pR24kR/JFKyOyFoIiPJv0q P4r7wNjn8mvV1D9KU7V22ORMgxYWZgOkXH18o5R+VjIhkoWGJNc4j4w6c9eiXtBCrH+h Y1Vj/q9XqrEHoEluEUiIKGKaKj5KGEBpXFQxJi7qVDuiKW/LfF8fH7nBRyBkJqnNZR1q JYA7V8unmyZJGmFLtOAGvtT418khPWIOPnM/BlSjSrETu98Ey4wuCVjTV0xwoUXy3cFw uUv7x/AOKpzGmxF8p0HlVLphYIyjHNUGokJf0Td0Wli8HvcW7Ec3BhNLtAkBDqiBEN+j UvKA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.60.102.205 with SMTP id fq13mr8223678oeb.10.1438973864136; Fri, 07 Aug 2015 11:57:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.202.220.6 with HTTP; Fri, 7 Aug 2015 11:57:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.202.220.6 with HTTP; Fri, 7 Aug 2015 11:57:43 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2015 13:57:43 -0500 Message-ID: From: Ryan Butler To: Mark Friedenbach Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e01182bb0035832051cbd3684 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,FREEMAIL_REPLY,HTML_MESSAGE, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=no 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] Fees and the block-finding process 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, 07 Aug 2015 18:57:46 -0000 --089e01182bb0035832051cbd3684 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Who said anything about scaling bitcoin to visa levels now? We're talking about an increase now that scales into the future at a rate that is consistent with technological progress. Peter himself said "So, I think the block size should follow technological evolution...". The blocksize increase proposals have been modeled around this very thing. It's reasonable to increase the blocksize to a point that a reasonable person, with reasonable equipment and internet access can run a node or even a miner with acceptable orphan rates. Most miners are spv mining anyways. The 8 or even 20 MB limits are within those parameters. These are not mutually exclusive. We can design an increase to blocksize that addresses both demand exceeding the available space AND follow technological evolution. Peter's latest proposal is way too conservative on that front. On Aug 7, 2015 1:25 PM, "Mark Friedenbach" wrote: > Please don't put words into Pieter's mouth. I guarantee you everyone > working on Bitcoin in their heart of hearts would prefer everyone in the > world being able to use the Bitcoin ledger for whatever purpose, if there > were no cost. > > But like any real world engineering issue, this is a matter of tradeoffs. > At the extreme it is simply impossible to scale Bitcoin to the terrabyte > sized blocks that would be necessary to service the entire world's > financial transactions. Not without sacrificing entirely the protection of > policy neutrality achieved through decentralization. And as that is > Bitcoin's only advantage over traditional consensus systems, you would have > to wonder what the point of such an endeavor would be. > > So *somewhere* you have to draw the line, and transactions below that > level are simply pushed into higher level or off-chain protocols. > > The issue, as Pieter and Jorge have been pointing out, is that technical > discussion over where that line should be has been missing from this debate. > > On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 10:47 AM, Ryan Butler via bitcoin-dev < > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > >> Interesting position there Peter...you fear more people actually using >> bitcoin. The less on chain transactions the lower the velocity and the >> lower the value of the network. I would be careful what you ask for >> because you end up having nothing left to even root the security of these >> off chain transactions with and then neither will exist. >> >> Nobody ever said you wouldn't run out of capacity at any size. It's >> quite the fallacy to draw the conclusion from that statement that block >> size should remain far below a capacity it can easily maintain which would >> bring more users/velocity/value to the system. The outcomes of both of >> those scenarios are asymmetric. A higher block size can support more users >> and volume. >> >> Raising the blocksize isn't out of fear. It's the realization that we >> are at a point where we can raise it and support more users and >> transactions while keeping the downsides to a minimum (centralization etc). >> On Aug 7, 2015 11:28 AM, "Pieter Wuille via bitcoin-dev" < >> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: >> >>> On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 5:55 PM, Gavin Andresen >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 11:16 AM, Pieter Wuille >>> > wrote: >>>> >>>>> I guess my question (and perhaps that's what Jorge is after): do you >>>>> feel that blocks should be increased in response to (or for fear of) such a >>>>> scenario. >>>>> >>>> >>>> I think there are multiple reasons to raise the maximum block size, and >>>> yes, fear of Bad Things Happening as we run up against the 1MB limit is one >>>> of the reasons. >>>> >>>> I take the opinion of smart engineers who actually do resource planning >>>> and have seen what happens when networks run out of capacity very seriously. >>>> >>> >>> This is a fundamental disagreement then. I believe that the demand is >>> infinite if you don't set a fee minimum (and I don't think we should), and >>> it just takes time for the market to find a way to fill whatever is >>> available - the rest goes into off-chain systems anyway. You will run out >>> of capacity at any size, and acting out of fear of that reality does not >>> improve the system. Whatever size blocks are actually produced, I believe >>> the result will either be something people consider too small to be >>> competitive ("you mean Bitcoin can only do 24 transactions per second?" >>> sounds almost the same as "you mean Bitcoin can only do 3 transactions per >>> second?"), or something that is very centralized in practice, and likely >>> both. >>> >>> >>>> And if so, if that is a reason for increase now, won't it be a reason >>>>> for an increase later as well? It is my impression that your answer is yes, >>>>> that this is why you want to increase the block size quickly and >>>>> significantly, but correct me if I'm wrong. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Sure, it might be a reason for an increase later. Here's my message to >>>> in-the-future Bitcoin engineers: you should consider raising the maximum >>>> block size if needed and you think the benefits of doing so (like increased >>>> adoption or lower transaction fees or increased reliability) outweigh the >>>> costs (like higher operating costs for full-nodes or the disruption caused >>>> by ANY consensus rule change). >>>> >>> >>> In general that sounds reasonable, but it's a dangerous precedent to >>> make technical decisions based on a fear of change of economics... >>> >>> -- >>> Pieter >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> bitcoin-dev mailing list >>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org >>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev >>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> bitcoin-dev mailing list >> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org >> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev >> >> > --089e01182bb0035832051cbd3684 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Who said anything about scaling bitcoin to visa levels now?= =C2=A0 We're talking about an increase now that scales into the future = at a rate that is consistent with technological progress.

Peter himself said "So, I think the block size should f= ollow technological evolution...".

The blocksize increase proposals have been modeled around th= is very thing.=C2=A0 It's reasonable to increase the blocksize to a poi= nt that a reasonable person, with reasonable equipment and internet access = can run a node or even a miner with acceptable orphan rates.=C2=A0 Most min= ers are spv mining anyways.=C2=A0 The 8 or even 20 MB limits are within tho= se parameters.

These are not mutually exclusive.=C2=A0 We can design an inc= rease to blocksize that addresses both demand exceeding the available space= AND follow technological evolution.=C2=A0 Peter's latest proposal is w= ay too conservative on that front.

On Aug 7, 2015 1:25 PM, "Mark Friedenbach&q= uot; <mark@friedenbach.org&g= t; wrote:
Please don't put words into Pieter's mouth.= I guarantee you everyone working on Bitcoin in their heart of hearts would= prefer everyone in the world being able to use the Bitcoin ledger for what= ever purpose, if there were no cost.

But like any real world e= ngineering issue, this is a matter of tradeoffs. At the extreme it is simpl= y impossible to scale Bitcoin to the terrabyte sized blocks that would be n= ecessary to service the entire world's financial transactions. Not with= out sacrificing entirely the protection of policy neutrality achieved throu= gh decentralization. And as that is Bitcoin's only advantage over tradi= tional consensus systems, you would have to wonder what the point of such a= n endeavor would be.

So *somewhere* you have to draw the line,= and transactions below that level are simply pushed into higher level or o= ff-chain protocols.

The issue, as Pieter and Jorge have been p= ointing out, is that technical discussion over where that line should be ha= s been missing from this debate.

On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 10:47 AM, Ryan Butler via b= itcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org&= gt; wrote:

Interest= ing position there Peter...you fear more people actually using bitcoin.=C2= =A0 The less on chain transactions the lower the velocity and the lower the= value of the network.=C2=A0 I would be careful what you ask for because yo= u end up having nothing left to even root the security of these off chain t= ransactions with and then neither will exist.

Nobody ever said you wouldn't run out of capacity at any= size.=C2=A0 It's quite the fallacy to draw the conclusion from that st= atement that block size should remain far below a capacity it can easily ma= intain which would bring more users/velocity/value to the system.=C2=A0 The= outcomes of both of those scenarios are asymmetric.=C2=A0 A higher block s= ize can support more users and volume.

Raising the blocksize isn't out of fear.=C2=A0 It's = the realization that we are at a point where we can raise it and support mo= re users and transactions while keeping the downsides to a minimum (central= ization etc).

On Aug 7, 2015 11:28 AM, "Pieter = Wuille via bitcoin-dev" <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org&= gt; wrote:
On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 5:55 PM, Gavin Andrese= n <gavinandresen@gmail.com> wrote:
On= Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 11:16 AM, Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.c= om> wrote:
I guess my ques= tion (and perhaps that's what Jorge is after): do you feel that blocks = should be increased in response to (or for fear of) such a scenario.
=

I think there are= multiple reasons to raise the maximum block size, and yes, fear of Bad Thi= ngs Happening as we run up against the 1MB limit is one of the reasons.

I take the opinion of smart engineers who actually do= resource planning and have seen what happens when networks run out of capa= city very seriously.

This is a fundamental disagreement then. I believe that the demand is inf= inite if you don't set a fee minimum (and I don't think we should),= and it just takes time for the market to find a way to fill whatever is av= ailable - the rest goes into off-chain systems anyway. You will run out of = capacity at any size, and acting out of fear of that reality does not impro= ve the system. Whatever size blocks are actually produced, I believe the re= sult will either be something people consider too small to be competitive (= "you mean Bitcoin can only do 24 transactions per second?" sounds= almost the same as "you mean Bitcoin can only do 3 transactions per s= econd?"), or something that is very centralized in practice, and likel= y both.


And if so, if that is a reason for increase now, = won't it be a reason for an increase later as well? It is my impression= that your answer is yes, that this is why you want to increase the block s= ize quickly and significantly, but correct me if I'm wrong.
<= /div>

Sure, it might be = a reason for an increase later. Here's my message to in-the-future Bitc= oin engineers: =C2=A0you should consider raising the maximum block size if = needed and you think the benefits of doing so (like increased adoption or l= ower transaction fees or increased reliability) outweigh the costs (like hi= gher operating costs for full-nodes or the disruption caused by ANY consens= us rule change).

In general that sounds reasonable, but it's a dangerou= s precedent to make technical decisions based on a fear of change of econom= ics...

--
Pieter

<= /div>

_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
= bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail= man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev


_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
= bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail= man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev


--089e01182bb0035832051cbd3684--