1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
|
Return-Path: <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 342FA97
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 14 Aug 2015 22:57:19 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-ob0-f176.google.com (mail-ob0-f176.google.com
[209.85.214.176])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B2F90E2
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 14 Aug 2015 22:57:18 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by obbhe7 with SMTP id he7so72853919obb.0
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 14 Aug 2015 15:57:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date
:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type;
bh=00XO6NdUYtxbvwrpxl6JZjlSQNyii5I8kUR2N0wMFpo=;
b=mxFk6VY6AShC62UfTCo1sr4FSxSjuxZ+0m4Q3eKsB4eQx2UkDQWqQaB56VsrgA0bVy
D8jIVRL7zTWjZfuNfb2GpR4g3ZvLEDbmsjZzz+1PZ05wHipU99h4E1kzD/CZkowGQ8tZ
+yV31iCUivEMuImgVhx8zTUVotOxwNxrBalNP9M32N7Xm5Z+vXfz7RQh1SnfCg9vFwj9
5nLCQFh8k2Pk7MklZcrbCMlbdjR5Db0NDR0T2KheSAOwZS2cUG7WpCJWiMvjG+LNChgc
zkmyxQb36/N/lpV2rtyvjzm4U3D38vevfdkEx1EzuvOzPASKRy9MlQ2XBL0oMxi3DK3E
n5XQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQl1ksn9I4yOC87C+/BY8NXiJkjjJZ1Pw740az84fPkNYtptb0Mbwh1XGMfjLuVLK70kl+vx
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.182.210.234 with SMTP id mx10mr40626071obc.1.1439593038140;
Fri, 14 Aug 2015 15:57:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.202.71.85 with HTTP; Fri, 14 Aug 2015 15:57:18 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAOXABZrMcpf4s=BuGsuLLoV80xt=hcd-i+h0V+AdJDQ2D8NKXg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABm2gDrfB+c1QTZippYYNX-uhcd9NYUcR-VHug6FYtPmSoz4Bw@mail.gmail.com>
<CAOXABZrMcpf4s=BuGsuLLoV80xt=hcd-i+h0V+AdJDQ2D8NKXg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2015 00:57:18 +0200
Message-ID: <CABm2gDphRR20QT6mQ66pheQyEJz26RLDZD-FNx5=Jqr9JZkkLQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
To: Ashley Holman <dscvlt@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,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] A summary list of all concerns related to not
rising the block size
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: Fri, 14 Aug 2015 22:57:19 -0000
On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 11:52 AM, Ashley Holman via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> A concern I have is about security (hash rate) as a function of block size.
>
> I am assuming that hash rate is correlated with revenue from mining.
>
> Total revenue from fees as a function of block size should be a curve. On
> one extreme of the curve, if blocks are too big, fee revenue tends towards 0
> as there is no competition for block space. At the other extreme, if blocks
> are too small, fee revenue is limited only to what the most valuable use
> case(s) can afford. Somewhere in the middle there should be a sweet spot
> where fee revenue is maximised. It's not a static curve though, it should
> change as demand for block space changes.
>
> Failing to scale the block size as demand grows might be forfeiting
> potential miner revenue and hence security.
>
> (I don't think that should be a primary concern though since
> decentralisation should come first, but I'm just pointing it out as a
> secondary concern).
I believe your concerns are included in:
1) Potential indirect consequence of rising fees.
[...]
1.4) Less users than we could have had with a bigger size
1.4.2) Not enough fees when subsidy is lower
|
