path: root/1a/ed219b93e752cc57a1e7e8c30dcfa958caa1da

Return-Path: <mickeybob@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
	[172.17.192.35])
	by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2C7648BA
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Thu,  6 Aug 2015 18:43:46 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-wi0-f181.google.com (mail-wi0-f181.google.com
	[209.85.212.181])
	by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 33DD915D
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Thu,  6 Aug 2015 18:43:45 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by wicgj17 with SMTP id gj17so33812163wic.1
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Thu, 06 Aug 2015 11:43:44 -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=p6ghhFVsal2wL+0pv2H5yaq/BIYEqHATh2TGB7XGveM=;
	b=lbJLpIwri2v0jX/BgNq0GjaHKYGDtTb/loAsI19ZhHTL/t/4HrNf0fGK+pcYNdsMTi
	6qnEVY0BHwIjFj1AeiR5EVaENimOfUtIKZv8J6+9ljECqpeWDqLvkbYCtpsvQVeQ3qEP
	HSJYcQMpw5JngNbLWhtkYFvSdARuBiSsTbcokT7I3IXWRI0IhQwmDCAQBDgrq0UfbPjT
	oD+UbQO3HJIZ1WOGZFpx1XzoGM/+hoKMA9UMzRh0bXvtzfK+e8YM7Ob6y+onnQlwtU6n
	9t6mRBhEWNommgtYQTXp65FBfSlTbcDbbFLwB9zIU6q+BSGv9UfVoXp4AitRG34PBm/c
	1YSg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.20.71 with SMTP id l7mr9245403wie.32.1438886623969; Thu,
	06 Aug 2015 11:43:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.27.78.207 with HTTP; Thu, 6 Aug 2015 11:43:43 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAPg+sBhn-Gw7x6RNCo39b_GoS+BmSa0bckjaJGz-uK1QEwp4zQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPg+sBj-wA1DMrwkQRWnzQoB5NR-q=2-5=WDAAUYfSpXRZSTqw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABsx9T1NqBX9Tr8vRCtCeri76e0wrtkvRhEPyG9Advv_3Uqxng@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPg+sBjwVxYTOn3+bwahHGSGpBh5BCh5b4OOFkw_2x97YZSFPQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+w+GKS_wDDgf=HjPgD5QZ_wdTRg7i_oYUgBRmh9HpufETAP=w@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABm2gDqvpWdHdjo1OBzbw-6ivu5DEGcfvK8duc3-KAjsSeWapA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+w+GKRPPcgCO0pBP2PjKGU49tWuBoF1vRJzY+4fWn71HOVDPw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABm2gDqV1NdHJZBmUWX3AxVYy6ErU7AB-wsWgGzbiTL1twdq6g@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+w+GKTLBWj6b4ppwrmnXb_gybYFcrX7haLBSdCnMaijy2An4w@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABm2gDpWPhYNh=g-ZXCsfe-aPq=N6NKSWKP9kr-KtPVrWAxB7Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAO2FKHsczkwwqO87cJFtxBp9JE=vf=GcxLx37GpRUkPq8VGHQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABm2gDpp5+hkHmd6op6PPW658siKoEMRDfTWiEHHM7vJSLDhyA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+BnGuFNOjzLaiPPnUSi-rkU94UMgmP30Si8N3oBSYG0q8j-_w@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABm2gDoNbhc1=kgc0F+wSm33hTmRmmptk-XcaZxsm=6iJkWu=w@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABsx9T22KUcbRb4ZfRDikbxK05pqWY1=uvYo10toWA-JwGa-PQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPg+sBg-KN5=A5_Fx3fo0dcD6mAdMUXBMNzW52SkQsRbADTmSg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABsx9T0QP3bmUkOSaD9X7zhcV3BNwT3xFZcsZnk+JL5oz-EfsA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPg+sBi-Ls3Kuk=KE5EApqCh8amkGTUEs9a-jh--vVXs4PtxCQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABsx9T0B2bZrFHxYR_QNwBmxskQx31zt=QE5BJAYjcOo7wbo3A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABsx9T1tujBCwydDC_q6d=qV1DiA0PE=fMHCpAJVjv84rx_RSw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPg+sBhn-Gw7x6RNCo39b_GoS+BmSa0bckjaJGz-uK1QEwp4zQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2015 13:43:43 -0500
Message-ID: <CALgxB7vqA=o1L0aftMtzNYC_OYJcVw6vuqUeB3a2F6d+VuoJkA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Michael Naber <mickeybob@gmail.com>
To: Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=bcaec53f2e271808d5051ca8e6fb
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 <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Fwd: Block size following technological growth
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
	<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
	<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 06 Aug 2015 18:43:46 -0000

--bcaec53f2e271808d5051ca8e6fb
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

How many nodes are necessary to ensure sufficient network reliability? Ten,
a hundred, a thousand? At what point do we hit the point of diminishing
returns, where adding extra nodes starts to have negligible impact on the
overall reliability of the system?





On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 10:26 AM, Pieter Wuille via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 5:06 PM, Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 10:53 AM, Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> So if we would have 8 MB blocks, and there is a sudden influx of users
>>> (or settlement systems, who serve much more users) who want to pay high
>>> fees (let's say 20 transactions per second) making the block chain
>>> inaccessible for low fee transactions, and unreliable for medium fee
>>> transactions (for any value of low, medium, and high), would you be ok with
>>> that?
>>
>>
>> Yes, that's fine. If the network cannot handle the transaction volume
>> that people want to pay for, then the marginal transactions are priced out.
>> That is true today (otherwise ChangeTip would be operating on-blockchain),
>> and will be true forever.
>>
>
> The network can "handle" any size. I believe that if a majority of miners
> forms SPV mining agreements, then they are no longer affected by the block
> size, and benefit from making their blocks slow to validate for others (as
> long as the fee is negligable compared to the subsidy). I'll try to find
> the time to implement that in my simulator. Some hardware for full nodes
> will always be able to validate and index the chain, so nobody needs to run
> a pesky full node anymore and they can just use a web API to validate
> payments.
>
> Being able the "handle" a particular rate is not a boolean question. It's
> a question of how much security, centralization, and risk for systemic
> error we're willing to tolerate. These are not things you can just observe,
> so let's keep talking about the risks, and find a solution that we agree on.
>
>
>>
>>> If so, why is 8 MB good but 1 MB not? To me, they're a small constant
>>> factor that does not fundamentally improve the scale of the system.
>>
>>
>> "better is better" -- I applaud efforts to fundamentally improve the
>> scalability of the system, but I am an old, cranky, pragmatic engineer who
>> has seen that successful companies tackle problems that arise and are
>> willing to deploy not-so-perfect solutions if they help whatever short-term
>> problem they're facing.
>>
>
> I don't believe there is a short-term problem. If there is one now, there
> will be one too at 8 MB blocks (or whatever actual size blocks are
> produced).
>
>
>>
>>
>>> I dislike the outlook of "being forever locked at the same scale" while
>>> technology evolves, so my proposal tries to address that part. It
>>> intentionally does not try to improve a small factor, because I don't think
>>> it is valuable.
>>
>>
>> I think consensus is against you on that point.
>>
>
> Maybe. But I believe that it is essential to not take unnecessary risks,
> and find a non-controversial solution.
>
> --
> Pieter
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
>

--bcaec53f2e271808d5051ca8e6fb
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">How many nodes are necessary to ensure sufficient network =
reliability? Ten, a hundred, a thousand? At what point do we hit the point =
of diminishing returns, where adding extra nodes starts to have negligible =
impact on the overall reliability of the system?=C2=A0<div><br></div><div><=
br><div><br></div><div><br></div></div></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br=
><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 10:26 AM, Pieter Wuille =
via bitcoin-dev <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.l=
inuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org=
</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin=
:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><=
div><span class=3D""><span>On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 5:06 PM, Gavin Andresen <=
span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:gavinandresen@gmail.com" target=3D"_=
blank">gavinandresen@gmail.com</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br></span><span><block=
quote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc=
 solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div c=
lass=3D"gmail_quote"><span>On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 10:53 AM, Pieter Wuille <=
span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:pieter.wuille@gmail.com" target=3D"_=
blank">pieter.wuille@gmail.com</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=
=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padd=
ing-left:1ex">So
 if we would have 8 MB blocks, and there is a sudden influx of users (or
 settlement systems, who serve much more users) who want to pay high=20
fees (let&#39;s say 20 transactions per second) making the block chain=20
inaccessible for low fee transactions, and unreliable for medium fee=20
transactions (for any value of low, medium, and high), would you be ok=20
with that?</blockquote><div><br></div></span><div>Yes, that&#39;s fine. If=
=20
the network cannot handle the transaction volume that people want to pay
 for, then the marginal transactions are priced out. That is true today=20
(otherwise ChangeTip would be operating on-blockchain), and will be true
 forever.</div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div></span></span>=
<div>The
 network can &quot;handle&quot; any size. I believe that if a majority of m=
iners=20
forms SPV mining agreements, then they are no longer affected by the=20
block size, and benefit from making their blocks slow to validate for=20
others (as long as the fee is negligable compared to the subsidy). I&#39;ll=
=20
try to find the time to implement that in my simulator. Some hardware=20
for full nodes will always be able to validate and index the chain, so=20
nobody needs to run a pesky full node anymore and they can just use a=20
web API to validate payments.<br><br></div><div>Being able the &quot;handle=
&quot; a
 particular rate is not a boolean question. It&#39;s a question of how much=
=20
security, centralization, and risk for systemic error we&#39;re willing to=
=20
tolerate. These are not things you can just observe, so let&#39;s keep=20
talking about the risks, and find a solution that we agree on.<br><br></div=
><span class=3D""><span><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0=
 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><di=
v class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><span><div>=C2=A0</div><=
blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px=
 #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
 If so, why is 8 MB good but 1 MB not? To me, they&#39;re a small constant=
=20
factor that does not fundamentally improve the scale of the system.</blockq=
uote><div><br></div></span><div>&quot;better
 is better&quot; -- I applaud efforts to fundamentally improve the=20
scalability of the system, but I am an old, cranky, pragmatic engineer=20
who has seen that successful companies tackle problems that arise and=20
are willing to deploy not-so-perfect solutions if they help whatever=20
short-term problem they&#39;re facing.</div></div></div></div></blockquote>=
<div><br></div></span></span><div>I
 don&#39;t believe there is a short-term problem. If there is one now, ther=
e
 will be one too at 8 MB blocks (or whatever actual size blocks are=20
produced).<br>=C2=A0<br></div><span class=3D""><span><blockquote class=3D"g=
mail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-l=
eft:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_qu=
ote"><span><div>=C2=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"marg=
in:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
 I dislike the outlook of &quot;being forever locked at the same scale&quot=
; while
 technology evolves, so my proposal tries to address that part. It=20
intentionally does not try to improve a small factor, because I don&#39;t=
=20
think it is valuable.</blockquote></span></div><br>I think consensus is aga=
inst you on that point.</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div></span></spa=
n><div>Maybe. But I believe that it is essential to not take unnecessary ri=
sks, and find a non-controversial solution.<span class=3D"HOEnZb"><font col=
or=3D"#888888"><br><br></font></span></div><span class=3D"HOEnZb"><font col=
or=3D"#888888">-- <br></font></span></div><span class=3D"HOEnZb"><font colo=
r=3D"#888888">Pieter<br><br></font></span></div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.=
linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" =
rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail=
man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>

--bcaec53f2e271808d5051ca8e6fb--