Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BDEC267 for ; Sun, 9 Aug 2015 05:53:00 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-la0-f51.google.com (mail-la0-f51.google.com [209.85.215.51]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2E915106 for ; Sun, 9 Aug 2015 05:52:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: by labd1 with SMTP id d1so26130455lab.1 for ; Sat, 08 Aug 2015 22:52:57 -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=Swsb7U29ryUMfMhYv5cjz1WJoy5ncXIHZ6Lorx+80xs=; b=VWywBD0UDVypHXb5aIAF03/rjzcimj9bnB6ZgD3pGQr4X0gC+8mEEWiCOSaSEmTSXP iVlD2IGc/YAzukgqWv613CY6l/WQqGFSd5Hhx8bdlEikD37IUmZojrfaCcTvXwhr6Hv7 zGj17o7P1PZFZgbkSDcerQb5rGjeLtGugBciNhEtqDrVQSwPQWfFd3iLF+h6ZnBT014W hzdekCAUHssGvfQ2JupW3MMbD/AnwqC9hZ65WK7k1RgBrJsgcLS5gG52jft3K0qRAKdT 0HlXtX8rVyCOLm4CHtpPMGhSfCZW0PMOoqqwNmjGKaR8U8CpeQxyqrYx4zGjEu0W9vC7 b72w== X-Received: by 10.152.36.226 with SMTP id t2mr15251177laj.6.1439099577113; Sat, 08 Aug 2015 22:52:57 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.25.22.25 with HTTP; Sat, 8 Aug 2015 22:52:37 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <2586092.4ZtH253X8E@coldstorage> From: Hector Chu Date: Sun, 9 Aug 2015 06:52:37 +0100 Message-ID: To: Alex Morcos Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0158b5e61727a9051cda7b14 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: Sun, 09 Aug 2015 05:53:00 -0000 --089e0158b5e61727a9051cda7b14 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 You people are the most selfish kind of people in the world. Blackmail developers with overload of the system, to try to force them to urgently come up with solutions to the problem. The solution is always going to be... wait for it... "increase the block size". There is not enough time or manpower to do anything else. We are witnessing a tragedy of the commons before our very eyes. On 9 August 2015 at 00:05, Alex Morcos via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > I agree > There are a lot of difficult technical problems introduced by insufficient > block space that are best addressed now. As well as problems that scale > will exacerbate like bootstrapping that we should develop solutions for > first. > > > Sent from my iPad > > On Aug 8, 2015, at 6:45 PM, Dave Scotese via bitcoin-dev < > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > I see value in lowering the block size or leaving it where it is. We > expect to run out of space, and I think it's a good idea to prepare for > that, rather than avoid it. When we run out of space and the block size is > low, we will see problems. If we raise the block size, we will NOT see > these problems until bitcoin is bigger and more important and the pressure > is higher. > > Someone mentioned that when the backlog grows faster than it shrinks, that > is a real problem. I don't think it is. It is a problem for those who > don't wait for even one confirmation, but backlogs in the past have already > started training users to wait for at least one confirmation, or go > off-chain. I am comfortable leaving those zero-conf people in a little bit > of trouble. Everyone else can double-spend (perhaps that's not as easy as > it should be in bitcoin core) and use a higher fee, thus competing for > block space. Yes, $5 transactions suck, but $0.15 is not so bad and about > twice the average right now. > > Meanwhile, the higher fees everyone starts feeling like paying, along with > the visibility of the problems caused by full-blocks, will provide > excellent justification and motivation for increasing the limit. My > favorite thing to do is to have a solution ready for a problem I expect to > see, see the problem (so I can measure things about it) and then implement > the solution. > > In my experience, the single biggest reason not to run a full node has to > do with starting from scratch: "I used to run a full node, but last time I > had to download the full blockchain, it took ___ days, so I just use (some > wallet) now." I think that has been improved with headers-first, but many > people don't know it. > > I have some ideas how a "full node" could postpone being "full" but still > be nearly completely operational so that the delay between startup and > having a full blockchain is nearly painless. It involves bonded > representation of important not-so-large pieces of data (blocks that have > my transactions, the complete UTXO as of some height, etc.). If I know > that I have some btc, I could offer it (say, 100 or 1000 transaction fees' > worth) to anyone who will guarantee good data to me, and then when I have > the whole blockchain, I will know if they were honest. If done right, the > whole network could know whether or not they were honest and enforce the > bond if they weren't. Credit the Lightening paper for parts of this idea. > > Dave > > On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 4:06 PM, Adam Back via bitcoin-dev < > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > >> Please try to focus on constructive technical comments. >> >> On 7 August 2015 at 23:12, Thomas Zander via bitcoin-dev >> wrote: >> > What will the backlash be when people here that are pushing for >> "off-chain- >> > transactions" fail to produce a properly working alternative, which >> > essentially means we have to say NO to more users. >> >> But > 99% of Bitcoin transactions are already off-chain. There are >> multiple competing companies offering consumer & retail service with >> off-chain settlement. >> >> I wasnt clear but it seemed in your previous mail that you seemed to >> say you dont mind trusting other people with your money, and so >> presumably you are OK using these services, and so have no problem? >> >> > At this time and this size of bitcoin community, my personal experience >> (and >> > I've been part of many communities) saying NO to new customers >> >> Who said no to anything? The systems of off-chain transfer already >> exist and are by comparison to Bitcoins protocol simple and rapid to >> adapt and scale. >> >> Indications are that we can even do off-chain at scale with Bitcoin >> similar trust-minimisation with lightning, and duplex payment >> channels; and people are working on that right now. >> >> I think it would be interesting and useful for someone, with an >> interest in low trust, high scale transactions, to work on and propose >> an interoperability standard and API for such off-chain services to be >> accessed by wallets, and perhaps periodic on-chain inter-service >> netting. >> >> Adam >> _______________________________________________ >> bitcoin-dev mailing list >> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org >> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev >> > > > > -- > I like to provide some work at no charge to prove my value. Do you need a > techie? > I own Litmocracy and Meme Racing > (in alpha). > I'm the webmaster for The Voluntaryist > which now accepts Bitcoin. > I also code for The Dollar Vigilante . > "He ought to find it more profitable to play by the rules" - Satoshi > Nakamoto > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > > --089e0158b5e61727a9051cda7b14 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
You people are the most selfish kind of people in the worl= d. Blackmail developers with overload of the system, to try to force them t= o urgently come up with solutions to the problem. The solution is always go= ing to be... wait for it... "increase the block size". There is n= ot enough time or manpower to do anything else. We are witnessing a tragedy= of the commons before our very eyes.

<= div class=3D"gmail_quote">On 9 August 2015 at 00:05, Alex Morcos via bitcoi= n-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
= I agree
There are a lot of difficult technical problems introduce= d by insufficient block space that are best addressed now.=C2=A0 As well as= problems that scale will exacerbate like bootstrapping that we should deve= lop solutions for first. =C2=A0


Sent from my iPad

On Aug 8, 2015, at 6:45 PM, Dave Scotes= e via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:<= br>
I see value in lowering the block size or leaving it where it is. We = expect to run out of space, and I think it's a good idea to prepare for= that, rather than avoid it.=C2=A0 When we run out of space and the block s= ize is low, we will see problems.=C2=A0 If we raise the block size, we will= NOT see these problems until bitcoin is bigger and more important and the = pressure is higher.

Someone mentioned that when the backlog gr= ows faster than it shrinks, that is a real problem.=C2=A0 I don't think= it is.=C2=A0 It is a problem for those who don't wait for even one con= firmation, but backlogs in the past have already started training users to = wait for at least one confirmation, or go off-chain.=C2=A0 I am comfortable= leaving those zero-conf people in a little bit of trouble.=C2=A0 Everyone = else can double-spend (perhaps that's not as easy as it should be in bi= tcoin core) and use a higher fee, thus competing for block space.=C2=A0 Yes= , $5 transactions suck, but $0.15 is not so bad and about twice the average= right now.

Meanwhile, the higher fees everyone starts feeling= like paying, along with the visibility of the problems caused by full-bloc= ks, will provide excellent justification and motivation for increasing the = limit.=C2=A0 My favorite thing to do is to have a solution ready for a prob= lem I expect to see, see the problem (so I can measure things about it) and= then implement the solution.

In my experience, the single big= gest reason not to run a full node has to do with starting from scratch: &q= uot;I used to run a full node, but last time I had to download the full blo= ckchain, it took ___ days, so I just use (some wallet) now."=C2=A0 I t= hink that has been improved with headers-first, but many people don't k= now it.

I have some ideas how a "full node" cou= ld postpone being "full" but still be nearly completely operation= al so that the delay between startup and having a full blockchain is nearly= painless.=C2=A0 It involves bonded representation of important not-so-larg= e pieces of data (blocks that have my transactions, the complete UTXO as of= some height, etc.).=C2=A0 If I know that I have some btc, I could offer it= (say, 100 or 1000 transaction fees' worth) to anyone who will guarante= e good data to me, and then when I have the whole blockchain, I will know i= f they were honest.=C2=A0 If done right, the whole network could know wheth= er or not they were honest and enforce the bond if they weren't.=C2=A0 = Credit the Lightening paper for parts of this idea.

Dave

On= Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 4:06 PM, Adam Back via bitcoin-dev &= lt;bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
Please try to focus on constructive technical comment= s.

On 7 August 2015 at 23:12, Thomas Zander via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> What will the backlash be when people here that are pushing for "= off-chain-
> transactions" fail to produce a properly working alternative, whi= ch
> essentially means we have to say NO to more users.

But > 99% of Bitcoin transactions are already off-chain.=C2=A0 Th= ere are
multiple competing companies offering consumer & retail service with off-chain settlement.

I wasnt clear but it seemed in your previous mail that you seemed to
say you dont mind trusting other people with your money, and so
presumably you are OK using these services, and so have no problem?

> At this time and this size of bitcoin community, my personal experienc= e (and
> I've been part of many communities) saying NO to new customers

Who said no to anything?=C2=A0 The systems of off-chain transfer alr= eady
exist and are by comparison to Bitcoins protocol simple and rapid to
adapt and scale.

Indications are that we can even do off-chain at scale with Bitcoin
similar trust-minimisation with lightning, and duplex payment
channels; and people are working on that right now.

I think it would be interesting and useful for someone, with an
interest in low trust, high scale transactions, to work on and propose
an interoperability standard and API for such off-chain services to be
accessed by wallets, and perhaps periodic on-chain inter-service
netting.

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



--
I like to provide some work at no charge to prove my value. Do y= ou need a techie?=C2=A0
I own Litmocracy and Meme Racing (in alpha).
I'm the webmaster for The Voluntaryist which now accepts Bitcoin.
I also code for The Dollar Vigilante.
"He ought = to find it more profitable to play by the rules" - Satoshi Nakamoto
___________________= ____________________________
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/mail= man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev


--089e0158b5e61727a9051cda7b14--