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
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
|
Return-Path: <btcdrak@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 254B897
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 10 Aug 2015 12:33:28 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-yk0-f179.google.com (mail-yk0-f179.google.com
[209.85.160.179])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A6B43160
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 10 Aug 2015 12:33:27 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by ykaz130 with SMTP id z130so30283709yka.0
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 10 Aug 2015 05:33:27 -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=7KAaKIGB4zPeskbvevqXMtBSGKTamA7dSnxwLhKzk/g=;
b=KTpDzUeYZRg4YPwNT3QczWnYNLGailxVad6Rzg8D7/WiXB6xSPoRCo/vE1m9ZE+ODh
0IXtAnNlYByvfyQ3+KJ2NKrQv5gK/A8WPCUGCJB1zP6mGD2jm/rxj+yFn/xFFKLp13ao
JU+xDvKIjSn9LRrTIzGkGd8GwPECjfS+mseGOB8Sojbcu+BT7++YEXG24M8WsFUi8GJS
ItSYcFJtC/M14ayezMnVvQ7VAlXskBN/n5dc842KiihHNOuAtrN4Hu/389yIenhjsTGX
hWdhhUffVWx7sQXiH0+tP491z0KPVBw5BASeVuIdM8LQOF08Ae2TfzHsa4y68YYfx6DS
Nvfw==
X-Received: by 10.170.112.208 with SMTP id e199mr20864458ykb.69.1439210006952;
Mon, 10 Aug 2015 05:33:26 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.37.94.132 with HTTP; Mon, 10 Aug 2015 05:33:07 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CABm2gDoz4NMEQuQj6UHCYYCwihZrEC4Az8xDvTBwiZDf9eQ7-w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABsx9T16fH+56isq95m4+QWsKwP==tf75ep8ghnEcBoV4OtZJA@mail.gmail.com>
<CAPg+sBgOt=qhQVZv5P-4mcD75=L4PKgOfRqhyB6FZdSYQajrwQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CABsx9T10y6-=c7Qg6jysnf38wRX3NA3wWozxGfE+mEYJvPeqWA@mail.gmail.com>
<CABm2gDpwMQzju+Gsoe3qMi60MPr7OAiSuigy3RdA1xh-SwFzbw@mail.gmail.com>
<CABm2gDoz4NMEQuQj6UHCYYCwihZrEC4Az8xDvTBwiZDf9eQ7-w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Btc Drak <btcdrak@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2015 13:33:07 +0100
Message-ID: <CADJgMzusJG6N-nYujMXw-NtELYmykvBsUau3=L9WCySJTkDqKQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1137ce6238bfb7051cf431de
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, HK_RANDOM_ENVFROM,
HK_RANDOM_FROM,
HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=no 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] 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 <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: Mon, 10 Aug 2015 12:33:28 -0000
--001a1137ce6238bfb7051cf431de
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 12:55 PM, Jorge Tim=C3=B3n <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> Gavin, I interpret the absence of response to these questions as a
> sign that everybody agrees that there's no other reason to increase
> the consensus block size other than to avoid minimum market fees from
> rising (above zero).
> Feel free to correct that notion at any time by answering the
> questions yourself.
> In fact if any other "big block size advocate" thinks there's more
> reason I would like to hear their reasons too.
Additionally, correct me if I am wrong, but the net effect from preventing
fees rising from zero would be to guarantee miners have no alternative
income from fees as block subsidy dries up and thus harm the incentives to
secure the chain.
--001a1137ce6238bfb7051cf431de
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On M=
on, Aug 10, 2015 at 12:55 PM, Jorge Tim=C3=B3n <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a hre=
f=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">bitcoi=
n-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=
=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padd=
ing-left:1ex">Gavin, I interpret the absence of response to these questions=
as a<br>
sign that everybody agrees that=C2=A0 there's no other reason to increa=
se<br>
the consensus block size other than to avoid minimum market fees from<br>
rising (above zero).<br>
Feel free to correct that notion at any time by answering the<br>
questions yourself.<br>
In fact if any other "big block size advocate" thinks there's=
more<br>
reason I would like to hear their reasons too.</blockquote><div><br></div><=
div>Additionally, correct me if I am wrong, but the net effect from prevent=
ing fees rising from zero would be to guarantee miners have no alternative =
income from fees as block subsidy dries up and thus harm the incentives to =
secure the chain.</div><div><br></div></div></div></div>
--001a1137ce6238bfb7051cf431de--
|
