Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 55C988A8 for ; Tue, 11 Aug 2015 21:18:52 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-wi0-f182.google.com (mail-wi0-f182.google.com [209.85.212.182]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 564A3128 for ; Tue, 11 Aug 2015 21:18:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: by wicne3 with SMTP id ne3so77077967wic.0 for ; Tue, 11 Aug 2015 14:18:50 -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=tNMjxhXdAuT00LJOgZ0yZv1UJsZOODs030EjkLGaGMU=; b=WZRQgmWb2K6nTNmPoDzvv/FijLfvmN7HMelU28YgDXlMDhk34EBPPKxzIDL8TU5jVt O1oh07E2sOqR2rX6O6ToR+HmVPTiHwPX6ewgPc8AVM2qF8X/jUSbHzRkA9EmqW/f9yWg SYOZFJJMZ1ESXNRLA6MIw659mHRwRuETEY2vYKRYAEaoM/S1tR2tPAZyDahYUMi3yy26 gTrF9/wgVMzQCKUlMuSTTtTmLupacrp0rY8tezGVBIcxWICBfTCc9eVPWKTNEvgp1xxt bdiBqSkWuUEbHcdBObr88b+85WI0o/HGppWf70BT9LgrLYg+TtGNM+6j+CufZnmqF81G tbvQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.194.83.70 with SMTP id o6mr59842183wjy.44.1439327930119; Tue, 11 Aug 2015 14:18:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.27.78.207 with HTTP; Tue, 11 Aug 2015 14:18:49 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <8181630.GdAj0CPZYc@coldstorage> Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2015 16:18:49 -0500 Message-ID: From: Michael Naber To: Pieter Wuille Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bb04adefd7ec9051d0fa533 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] 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: Tue, 11 Aug 2015 21:18:52 -0000 --047d7bb04adefd7ec9051d0fa533 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 The only reason why Bitcoin has grown the way it has, and in fact the only reason why we're all even here on this mailing list talking about this, is because Bitcoin is growing, since it's "better money than other money". One of the key characteristics toward that is Bitcoin being inexpensive to transact. If that characteristic is no longer true, then Bitcoin isn't going to grow, and in fact Bitcoin itself will be replaced by better money that is less expensive to transfer. So the importance of this issue cannot be overstated -- it's compete or die for Bitcoin -- because people want to transact with global consensus at high volume, and because technology exists to service that want, then it's going to be met. This is basic rules of demand and supply. I don't necessarily disagree with your position on only wanting to support uncontroversial commits, but I think it's important to get consensus on the criticality of the block size issue: do you agree, disagree, or not take a side, and why? On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 2:51 PM, Pieter Wuille wrote: > On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 9:37 PM, Michael Naber via bitcoin-dev < > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > >> Hitting the limit in and of itself is not necessarily a bad thing. The >> question at hand is whether we should constrain that limit below what >> technology is capable of delivering. I'm arguing that not only we should >> not, but that we could not even if we wanted to, since competition will >> deliver capacity for global consensus whether it's in Bitcoin or in some >> other product / fork. >> > > The question is not what the technology can deliver. The question is what > price we're willing to pay for that. It is not a boolean "at this size, > things break, and below it, they work". A small constant factor increase > will unlikely break anything in the short term, but it will come with > higher centralization pressure of various forms. There is discussion about > whether these centralization pressures are significant, but citing that > it's artificially constrained under the limit is IMHO a misrepresentation. > It is constrained to aim for a certain balance between utility and risk, > and neither extreme is interesting, while possibly still "working". > > Consensus rules are what keeps the system together. You can't simply > switch to new rules on your own, because the rest of the system will end up > ignoring you. These rules are there for a reason. You and I may agree about > whether the 21M limit is necessary, and disagree about whether we need a > block size limit, but we should be extremely careful with change. My > position as Bitcoin Core developer is that we should merge consensus > changes only when they are uncontroversial. Even when you believe a more > invasive change is worth it, others may disagree, and the risk from > disagreement is likely larger than the effect of a small block size > increase by itself: the risk that suddenly every transaction can be spent > twice (once on each side of the fork), the very thing that the block chain > was designed to prevent. > > My personal opinion is that we should aim to do a block size increase for > the right reasons. I don't think fear of rising fees or unreliability > should be an issue: if fees are being paid, it means someone is willing to > pay them. If people are doing transactions despite being unreliable, there > must be a use for them. That may mean that some use cases don't fit > anymore, but that is already the case. > > -- > Pieter > > --047d7bb04adefd7ec9051d0fa533 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
The only reason why Bitcoin has grown the way it has, and = in fact the only reason why we're all even here on this mailing list ta= lking about this, is because Bitcoin is growing, since it's "bette= r money than other money". One of the key characteristics toward that = is Bitcoin being inexpensive to transact. If that characteristic is no long= er true, then Bitcoin isn't going to grow, and in fact Bitcoin itself w= ill be replaced by better money that is less expensive to transfer.
So the importance of this issue cannot be overstated -- it'= s compete or die for Bitcoin -- because people want to transact with global= consensus at high volume, and because technology exists to service that wa= nt, then it's going to be met. This is basic rules of demand and supply= . I don't necessarily disagree with your position on only wanting to su= pport uncontroversial commits, but I think it's important to get consen= sus on the criticality of the block size issue: do you agree, disagree, or = not take a side, and why?


On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 2:51 PM, Pieter = Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 = at 9:37 PM, Michael Naber via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev= @lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
Hitting the limit in and of itself is not necessarily = a bad thing. The question at hand is whether we should constrain that limit= below what technology is capable of delivering. I'm arguing that not o= nly we should not, but that we could not even if we wanted to, since compet= ition will deliver capacity for global consensus whether it's in Bitcoi= n or in some other product / fork.=C2=A0

<= /div>
The question is not what the technology can deliver. The q= uestion is what price we're willing to pay for that. It is not a boolea= n "at this size, things break, and below it, they work". A small = constant factor increase will unlikely break anything in the short term, bu= t it will come with higher centralization pressure of various forms. There = is discussion about whether these centralization pressures are significant,= but citing that it's artificially constrained under the limit is IMHO = a misrepresentation. It is constrained to aim for a certain balance between= utility and risk, and neither extreme is interesting, while possibly still= "working".

Consensus rules are what keeps the = system together. You can't simply switch to new rules on your own, beca= use the rest of the system will end up ignoring you. These rules are there = for a reason. You and I may agree about whether the 21M limit is necessary,= and disagree about whether we need a block size limit, but we should be ex= tremely careful with change. My position as Bitcoin Core developer is that = we should merge consensus changes only when they are uncontroversial. Even = when you believe a more invasive change is worth it, others may disagree, a= nd the risk from disagreement is likely larger than the effect of a small b= lock size increase by itself: the risk that suddenly every transaction can = be spent twice (once on each side of the fork), the very thing that the blo= ck chain was designed to prevent.

My personal opinion is = that we should aim to do a block size increase for the right reasons. I don= 't think fear of rising fees or unreliability should be an issue: if fe= es are being paid, it means someone is willing to pay them. If people are d= oing transactions despite being unreliable, there must be a use for them. T= hat may mean that some use cases don't fit anymore, but that is already= the case.

--
Pieter=


--047d7bb04adefd7ec9051d0fa533--