Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6F2D18D4 for ; Tue, 11 Aug 2015 21:31:03 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-io0-f172.google.com (mail-io0-f172.google.com [209.85.223.172]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8BEF7176 for ; Tue, 11 Aug 2015 21:31:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: by iods203 with SMTP id s203so1429317iod.0 for ; Tue, 11 Aug 2015 14:31:02 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=nz8EpGZJeIbPMk/T7L82rKI4HHD8a5MPheAZfsSljvM=; b=ORr1zKGh85KYMH+29G69tsuBbCAB3+Wgj9gsS8X9PFOmprL4bK3bWrBhpVzU/V+wCE 04X8wQsEbWmTS8+Mywz6mVl2d500OcdrPH3kkV6pTJsee1TgNInz4aviR1j6fN68F5Lb /SyQGb2Onv0mQIPMofhitITJ1rDmGWNBoaslZtSs/zSG4MtZQMq80DCiCtM1M85qYf+9 I7SKx3AHMmHYNpJP4zetVJluJoEmtoYqh69BhUDfEvGJkfsNoQ1v7V+dHBQuBoJST4Qj YJ8x6KRCP0yI/YnuGlfnuFfMFyU13CUwWmM+ro0yOBrVbPcAicTrCPBavQdW5HmtY5YB k3cQ== X-Received: by 10.107.150.141 with SMTP id y135mr27876182iod.38.1439328662008; Tue, 11 Aug 2015 14:31:02 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.36.122.144 with HTTP; Tue, 11 Aug 2015 14:30:42 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <8181630.GdAj0CPZYc@coldstorage> From: Angel Leon Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2015 17:30:42 -0400 Message-ID: To: Adam Back Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11403fd49d3bc8051d0fd167 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 21:31:03 -0000 --001a11403fd49d3bc8051d0fd167 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 tell that to people in poor countries, or even in first world countries. The competitive thing here is a deal breaker for a lot of people who have no clue/don't care for decentralization, they just want to send money from A to B, like email. http://twitter.com/gubatron On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 5:23 PM, Adam Back via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > I dont think Bitcoin being cheaper is the main characteristic of > Bitcoin. I think the interesting thing is trustlessness - being able > to transact without relying on third parties. > > Adam > > > On 11 August 2015 at 22:18, Michael Naber via bitcoin-dev > wrote: > > 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 > >> 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 > >> > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > --001a11403fd49d3bc8051d0fd167 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
tell that to people in poor countries, or even in first wo= rld countries. The competitive thing here is a deal breaker for a lot of pe= ople who have no clue/don't care for decentralization, they just want t= o send money from A to B, like email.

http://twitter.com/gubatron

On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 5:23 PM, Adam Back v= ia bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org<= /a>> wrote:
I dont think Bitcoi= n being cheaper is the main characteristic of
Bitcoin.=C2=A0 I think the interesting thing is trustlessness - being able<= br> to transact without relying on third parties.

Adam


On 11 August 2015 at 22:18, Michael Naber via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev@li= sts.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> 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 oth= er money". One
> of the key characteristics toward that is Bitcoin being inexpensive to=
> transact. If that characteristic is no longer true, then Bitcoin isn&#= 39;t going
> to grow, and in fact Bitcoin itself will be replaced by better money t= hat is
> less expensive to transfer.
>
> So the importance of this issue cannot be overstated -- it's compe= te or die
> for Bitcoin -- because people want to transact with global consensus a= t high
> volume, and because technology exists to service that want, then it= 9;s going
> to be met. This is basic rules of demand and supply. I don't neces= sarily
> disagree with your position on only wanting to support uncontroversial=
> commits, but I think it's important to get consensus on the critic= ality 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
>> <bitco= in-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hitting the limit in and of itself is not necessarily a bad th= ing. The
>>> question at hand is whether we should constrain that limit bel= ow 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 competi= tion will
>>> deliver capacity for global consensus whether it's in Bitc= oin 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 fact= or increase
>> will unlikely break anything in the short term, but it will come w= ith higher
>> centralization pressure of various forms. There is discussion abou= t whether
>> these centralization pressures are significant, but citing that it= 's
>> artificially constrained under the limit is IMHO a misrepresentati= on. 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 wi= ll end up
>> ignoring you. These rules are there for a reason. You and I may ag= ree 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 consens= us changes
>> only when they are uncontroversial. Even when you believe a more i= nvasive
>> change is worth it, others may disagree, and the risk from disagre= ement is
>> likely larger than the effect of a small block size increase by it= self: the
>> risk that suddenly every transaction can be spent twice (once on e= ach 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 incre= ase for
>> the right reasons. I don't think fear of rising fees or unreli= ability should
>> be an issue: if fees are being paid, it means someone is willing t= o pay
>> them. If people are doing transactions despite being unreliable, t= here must
>> be a use for them. That may mean that some use cases don't fit= anymore, but
>> that is already the case.
>>
>> --
>> Pieter
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@l= ists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org= /mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.= linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail= man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

--001a11403fd49d3bc8051d0fd167--