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
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
|
Return-Path: <andrewlecody@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 62E7D40D
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 30 Jul 2015 04:52:02 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-ob0-f180.google.com (mail-ob0-f180.google.com
[209.85.214.180])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6BA78116
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 30 Jul 2015 04:52:00 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by obdeg2 with SMTP id eg2so23025586obd.0
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 29 Jul 2015 21:51:59 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to
:cc:content-type;
bh=FOo6p9PcgCMN9ZTQjUMxAmn5KnMGk4EKwAU/ronnm6M=;
b=hnbDxsKMYwym9+sgKbKsaH3nksGbn8Yy1sZnT1nSMo7gyzmTWHzzDGjX3FFsAOdoC7
dKn97ncFj2vUs5IRX/A3KUpVVOuRtWJhqH/NM49alcuGzAWan8wRKVYryWR4eOkhDaaK
5XAxW3TKALJnv1VRA0lHsYRbeDzN/eeStz4zSL084jcphznKmFP3vv1tLvLBBLiUuWm5
c4xLi6suyZwRgzhjBYO1ucvDVDnhbTBVw8r3Eps4osmvTwHkdibafiGm9nI7knIJmaoD
OWAa6H5HZFFrTxOqG2OHZmCMmRQI/PSYCanbjBfBuXcm3P4u9U/hAbw2Cw+G4Ksfcjbk
mYZQ==
X-Received: by 10.60.134.19 with SMTP id pg19mr45655115oeb.12.1438231919729;
Wed, 29 Jul 2015 21:51:59 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1B7F00D3-41AE-44BF-818D-EC4EF279DC11@gmail.com>
<CA+w+GKTfPXkVPaCC+3ZsQv=_DPMHoRwbigS40Testpyq4rZxsw@mail.gmail.com>
<D25BD175-7099-4A6B-89BB-A35E94F555A9@gmail.com>
<CA+w+GKTZV5sgXNU_xoBby1_X6eae=5_vhENmyKY0yxWHcBiU5g@mail.gmail.com>
<37D282C2-EF9C-4B8B-91E8-7D613B381824@phauna.org>
<CAAS2fgSaRqxi3X0J3F05nA-tyRRikY1whkpAOuGJJpFSAR017w@mail.gmail.com>
<COL131-DS222F0D512C6A5B47BF62C2CD8C0@phx.gbl>
<55B94FAD.7040205@mail.bihthai.net>
<COL131-DS95F86B1D5B93CE1275911CD8C0@phx.gbl>
<CALqxMTEUAtNxkYMQwA9g9xH_LiX98yYOooGjUho1T3fMY2J5jQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALqxMTEUAtNxkYMQwA9g9xH_LiX98yYOooGjUho1T3fMY2J5jQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Andrew LeCody <andrewlecody@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 04:51:50 +0000
Message-ID: <CAEX2NSc6FXsDLEpRq7YOxQErpBxS7tW8Afk-T9VUyeb2qS2brQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Adam Back <adam@cypherspace.org>, "Raystonn ." <raystonn@hotmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b471dbeae37f9051c1076c4
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] Why Satoshi's temporary anti-spam measure
isn'ttemporary
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, 30 Jul 2015 04:52:02 -0000
--047d7b471dbeae37f9051c1076c4
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
tl;dr
$100 worth of hardware and $1/mo of expenses, should be able to run a full
Bitcoin node until 2020 with BIP101-size blocks.
----
I got into Bitcoin in the summer of 2010. I'm not a cryptographer, up until
recently my profession has been as a server administrator or systems
engineer.
I'd like to take a second to address the concern that larger blocks would
make it harder to run a full node on limited hardware and would therefore
hurt decentralization. I run two nodes today, one on server-grade hardware
at a datacenter and another on a mini-ITX Atom (dual core) system at my
home.
I detailed the operational costs of my home node today on reddit:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3f0h8e/mike_h_shuts_down_eric_ls_attempt_to_rewrite/ctkigpr
If I was a new user, wanting to run a full node. The most cost effective
way would likely be with a Raspberry Pi 2 and a 2TB external HDD. Total
cost about $100, including charger, microSD card, etc. That is less than
the cost of a TREZOR hardware wallet. As far as home projects go, not
terribly expensive.
Next, it will need power. According to the Wikipedia article, the rpi 2
model B uses 3.5 watts of power max. The 2TB external drive will draw about
5 watts at max. That's a total of 8.5 watts or 6.205 Kwh per month. In my
area (North Texas) power is about $0.10/Kwh, which means my little node
costs $0.62 per month in power.
Last, lets look at bandwidth. It's difficult to quantify bandwidth cost in
the same way because this is a home connection, mainly because I don't know
how to price in the loss of enjoyment if the system impacts my Internet
usage to a noticeable degree. Luckily, I have some real world data from my
existing home node. Here is the last month:
http://imgur.com/YmJwQpN
This system averages 120 Kbps in and 544 Kbps out. Note, this data is
somewhat skewed, because the system is also used for seeding torrents of
various open source projects. The Bitcoin node itself is typically
connected to about 20 peers at any given time (maxconnections=20).
Subjectively, my wife and I have never noticed any degradation of
performance due to my home server using too much bandwidth. I think it's
safe to say that I can treat the bandwidth is uses as effectively free,
since it's piggybacking on a connection I would be paying for even if I was
not running a Bitcoin node. The bandwidth usage of this Bitcoin node could
increase significantly, without any noticeable impact. If it did, I could
always lower maxconnections back to 8.
The only real constraint seems to be hard drive space, as the full
blockchain and indexes take up about 50GB of space currently. If BIP101 is
implemented, 2TB of storage should be enough for me to continue running my
hypothetical $100 node until about 2020.
It seems to me that at least for the next 5 years, the "small devices" of
today can easily run Bitcoin nodes with BIP101-size blocks, with very
little operational cost.
If anyone would like more detailed data on my existing nodes, please let me
know and I'll attempt to provide it (so long as it doesn't impact my
privacy of course).
On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 10:49 PM Adam Back via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> I dont think people consider other blockchains as a competitive
> threat. A PoW-blockchain is a largely singleton data structure for
> security reasons (single highest hashrate), it is hard for an
> alternative chain to bootstrap or provide meaningful security.
> Secondly the world largely lacks expertise to maintain a blockchain to
> bitcoin's security level, perhaps you can see a hint of this in the
> recently disclosed security vulnerability by Pieter Wuille and Gregory
> Maxwell. Calls to this as an argument are not resonating and probably
> not helping your argument. Bitcoin has security properties, and a
> competing system cant achieve better properties by bypassing security,
> any blockchain faces the same fundamental security / decentralisation
> limitations.
>
> Secondly Bitcoin can obviously compete with itself with different
> parameters and defacto *does* today. I think it is a safe estimate
> that > 99% of Bitcoin transactions right now are happening in Bitcoin
> related systems with various degrees of audit, reconciliation,
> provable reserves etc. I think we can expect this to continue and
> become more secure via more reconciliation, and longer term via
> lightning or Bitcoin sidechains with different parameters. It is a
> different story to have a single central system (Bitcoin with
> parameters changed to the point of centralisation failure) vs having
> multiple choices, because some transactions can more easily use
> relatively centralised systems (eg micropayments), and more
> interestingly the combination of a secure and decentralised layer 1
> plus choices of less decentralised layer 2 options, can be interesting
> because the layer 2 is provided cover from attack. There is less to
> be gained by attacking relatively centralised layer 2 because any
> payments at risk of policy abuse (which is typically a small subset)
> can easily switch to layer 1. That in itself makes layer 2
> transactions also less susceptible to policy abuse. Further lightning
> it appears from work so far should add significant scale while
> retaining trustlessness and a good degree of decentralisation.
>
> Finally you seem to be focusing on "artificial" limits where that is
> not the issue under consideration. The limits are technical and
> relating to decentralisation and security. I wont go over them again
> as this topic has been covered many times in recent months. Any chain
> that tried to go to extreme parameters (very low block intervals, or
> very large blocksizes) would have the same decentralisation problems
> as Bitcoin would if it did the same thing. There are a number of alt
> coins that have failed as a result of poor parameter choices, there
> are inherent security limits.
>
> Adam
>
> ps Etiquette note for yourself and others: please dont be repetitive
> or attempt to be forceful. Many people have spent many years
> understanding this very complex system, from my own experience it is
> rare indeed to think of an entirely new concept or analysis, that
> hasnt' been long considered and put to bed 3 or 4 years ago.
> Thoughtful polite and constructive comments are welcome but I
> recommend to not start from an assumption that you have a clear and
> better insight than the entire technical community, because I have to
> say from my own experience that is very rarely the case. It can be
> useful to test theories on #bitcoin IRC channel to find out what has
> been already concluded, find the references and avoid having to have
> that hashed out on this list which is trying to be focussed on
> technical solutions.
>
>
> On 29 July 2015 at 16:10, Raystonn . via bitcoin-dev
> <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> >> Cheapest way to send value? Is this what Bitcoin is trying to do? So
> >> all of the smart contract, programmable money, consensus coding and
> >> tremendous developer effort is bent to the consumer demand for cheaper
> >> fees. Surely thou jests!
> >
> >
> > These other features can be replicated into any alternative blockchain,
> > including those with lower fees. In the open-source world of
> > cryptocurrency, no feature will remain a value-add for very long after it
> > has been identified to be such. Anything adding value will quickly be
> > absorbed into competing alternative blockchains. That will leave
> economic
> > policy as the distinguishing factor.
> >
> >> ... it is not the case ... that reluctance to concede
> >> blocksize is an attempt to constrain capacity. Greg Maxwell thoroughly
> >> explained in this thread that the protocol's current state of
> >> development relies on blocksize for security and, ultimately, as a
> >> means of protecting its degree of decentralization.
> >
> >
> > A slow or lack of increase to maximum transaction rate will cause
> pressure
> > on fees. Whether this is the desired goal is not relevant. Everyone has
> > agreed this will be the outcome. As to a smaller block size being needed
> > for additional decentralization, one must simply ask how much we are all
> > willing to pay for that additional decentralization. It is likely that
> the
> > benefit thereto will have to be demonstrated by some power attacking and
> > destroying a less decentralized currency before the benefit of this
> feature
> > is given monetary value by the market. Until then, value will bleed to
> the
> > network with the least friction, because it will have the greatest
> ability
> > to grow its network effect. That means the blockchain with adequate
> > features and cheapest fees will eventually have the largest market share.
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message----- From: Venzen Khaosan
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2015 3:11 PM
> > To: Raystonn .
> > Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> > Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Why Satoshi's temporary anti-spam measure
> > isn'ttemporary
> >
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > Raystonn, I'm aware that you're addressing your question to Greg
> > Maxwell, however a point you keep stating as fact calls for reference:
> >
> > On 07/30/2015 04:28 AM, Raystonn . via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> > [snip]
> >>
> >> How do you plan to address the bleeding of value from Bitcoin to
> >> alternative lower-fee blockchains created by the artificially-high
> >> bitcoin transaction fees when users begin looking for the cheapest
> >> way to send value?
> >
> > Cheapest way to send value? Is this what Bitcoin is trying to do? So
> > all of the smart contract, programmable money, consensus coding and
> > tremendous developer effort is bent to the consumer demand for cheaper
> > fees. Surely thou jests!
> >
> >> Modern economic study has shown that liquidity moves to the
> >> location of least friction.
> >
> > Modern economic study? Can you please provide a link or reference to
> > the study you are referring to.
> >
> > "liquidity moves to the location of least friction"
> >
> > This sounds like "econo-speak" and makes no sense. The definition of
> > Liquidity is the degree to which an asset/security can be bought or
> > sold in the market without affecting the price.
> >
> > That is why bitcoin is said to have low liquidity: buying or selling
> > only 100 BTC visibly affects the exchange price. You probably mean
> > "people like cheap fees", which is true, but as others have said,
> > because of Bitcoin's powerful features, they are willing to pay higher
> > fees and wait longer for transactions to execute.
> >
> > As for your public cross-examination of Greg Maxwell, your case seems
> > to be made on the assumption that limiting the size of the blockchain
> > is an attempt to artificially raise tx fees, but it is not the case
> > (as you and others repeatedly argue) that reluctance to concede
> > blocksize is an attempt to constrain capacity. Greg Maxwell thoroughly
> > explained in this thread that the protocol's current state of
> > development relies on blocksize for security and, ultimately, as a
> > means of protecting its degree of decentralization.
> >
> > Surely, this is an obvious concern even for those who are campaigning
> > for the hare-brained ideal of making Bitcoin a "faster, cheaper
> > alternative" to visa or paypal? If we lose decentralization, we lose
> > the whole thing, right? Incorrect or correct?
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> > Version: GnuPG v1
> >
> > iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJVuU+rAAoJEGwAhlQc8H1m9nkH/00xXJ53H4qvHjPrdNRniwvB
> > RXi96QjbnVj/fxU2J2TBPYF1LxJ13avyL58bbaJF7GKqcpoYNZArCKLQyGaZGCTp
> > h7Oe/0S+b1QCrvxcVK8Ikeb7a1h9wnhAPf1FvAWoJ1cFGx/qGHetKqx1dQTWkVWz
> > Mp17vjaofmp2OhBzh0Smj+wV9hXn9w9giZKc6UGvC0Qc7Rf3GL/YVJzM2CZNvlLS
> > YhQSqnnqduugYztqLV/NvNExF41zC2IMyNmA41q46v/nh8stNSIcJleD39csNMfx
> > BXjrlnPfZ+JI4RhiH3I0qjOYWPtBH9od788DY509EOn3MT4vU+EVcQaxyuFqZyw=
> > =lQvy
> > -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>
--047d7b471dbeae37f9051c1076c4
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr"><div><div>tl;dr</div><div>$100 worth of hardware and $1/mo=
of expenses, should be able to run a full Bitcoin node until 2020 with BIP=
101-size blocks.</div></div><div><br></div><div>----</div><span style=3D"fo=
nt-size:small;line-height:20px"><div><span style=3D"font-size:small;line-he=
ight:20px"><br></span></div>I got into Bitcoin in the summer of 2010. I'=
;m not a cryptographer, up until recently my profession has been as a serve=
r administrator or systems engineer.</span><br><div><span style=3D"font-siz=
e:small;line-height:20px"><br></span></div><div><span style=3D"font-size:sm=
all;line-height:20px">I'd like to take a second to address the concern =
that larger blocks would make it harder to run a full node on limited hardw=
are and would therefore hurt decentralization. I run two nodes today, one o=
n server-grade hardware at a datacenter and another on a mini-ITX Atom (dua=
l core) system at my home.</span></div><div><span style=3D"font-size:small;=
line-height:20px"><br></span></div><div>I detailed the operational costs of=
my home node today on reddit:</div><div><a href=3D"https://www.reddit.com/=
r/Bitcoin/comments/3f0h8e/mike_h_shuts_down_eric_ls_attempt_to_rewrite/ctki=
gpr">https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3f0h8e/mike_h_shuts_down_eri=
c_ls_attempt_to_rewrite/ctkigpr</a><br></div><div><br></div><div>If I was a=
new user, wanting to run a full node. The most cost effective way would li=
kely be with a=C2=A0Raspberry Pi 2 and a 2TB external HDD. Total cost about=
$100, including charger, microSD card, etc. That is less than the cost of =
a TREZOR hardware wallet. As far as home projects go, not terribly expensiv=
e.</div><div><br></div><div>Next, it will need power. According to the Wiki=
pedia article, the rpi 2 model B uses 3.5 watts of power max. The 2TB exter=
nal drive will draw about 5 watts at max. That's a total of 8.5 watts o=
r 6.205 Kwh per month. In my area (North Texas) power is about $0.10/Kwh, w=
hich means my little node costs $0.62 per month in power.</div><div><br></d=
iv><div>Last, lets look at bandwidth. It's difficult to quantify bandwi=
dth cost in the same way because this is a home connection, mainly because =
I don't know how to price in the loss of enjoyment if the system impact=
s my Internet usage to a noticeable degree. Luckily, I have some real world=
data from my existing home node. Here is the last month:</div><div><a href=
=3D"http://imgur.com/YmJwQpN">http://imgur.com/YmJwQpN</a><br></div><div><b=
r></div><div>This system averages 120 Kbps in and 544 Kbps out. Note, this =
data is somewhat skewed, because the system is also used for seeding torren=
ts of various open source projects. The Bitcoin node itself is typically co=
nnected to about 20 peers at any given time (maxconnections=3D20).</div><di=
v><br></div><div>Subjectively, my wife and I have never noticed any degrada=
tion of performance due to my home server using too much bandwidth. I think=
it's safe to say that I can treat the bandwidth is uses as effectively=
free, since it's piggybacking on a connection I would be paying for ev=
en if I was not running a Bitcoin node. The bandwidth usage of this Bitcoin=
node could increase significantly, without any noticeable impact. If it di=
d, I could always lower maxconnections back to 8.</div><div><br></div><div>=
The only real constraint seems to be hard drive space, as the full blockcha=
in and indexes take up about 50GB of space currently. If BIP101 is implemen=
ted, 2TB of storage should be enough for me to continue running my hypothet=
ical $100 node until about 2020.</div><div><br></div><div>It seems to me th=
at at least for the next 5 years, the "small devices" of today ca=
n easily run Bitcoin nodes with BIP101-size blocks, with very little operat=
ional cost.</div><div><br></div><div>If anyone would like more detailed dat=
a on my existing nodes, please let me know and I'll attempt to provide =
it (so long as it doesn't impact my privacy of course).</div><br><div c=
lass=3D"gmail_quote"><div dir=3D"ltr">On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 10:49 PM Adam=
Back via bitcoin-dev <<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundati=
on.org" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>> wro=
te:<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;b=
order-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">I dont think people consider ot=
her blockchains as a competitive<br>
threat.=C2=A0 A PoW-blockchain is a largely singleton data structure for<br=
>
security reasons (single highest hashrate), it is hard for an<br>
alternative chain to bootstrap or provide meaningful security.<br>
Secondly the world largely lacks expertise to maintain a blockchain to<br>
bitcoin's security level, perhaps you can see a hint of this in the<br>
recently disclosed security vulnerability by Pieter Wuille and Gregory<br>
Maxwell.=C2=A0 Calls to this as an argument are not resonating and probably=
<br>
not helping your argument.=C2=A0 Bitcoin has security properties, and a<br>
competing system cant achieve better properties by bypassing security,<br>
any blockchain faces the same fundamental security / decentralisation<br>
limitations.<br>
<br>
Secondly Bitcoin can obviously compete with itself with different<br>
parameters and defacto *does* today.=C2=A0 I think it is a safe estimate<br=
>
that > 99% of Bitcoin transactions right now are happening in Bitcoin<br=
>
related systems with various degrees of audit, reconciliation,<br>
provable reserves etc.=C2=A0 I think we can expect this to continue and<br>
become more secure via more reconciliation, and longer term via<br>
lightning or Bitcoin sidechains with different parameters.=C2=A0 It is a<br=
>
different story to have a single central system (Bitcoin with<br>
parameters changed to the point of centralisation failure) vs having<br>
multiple choices, because some transactions can more easily use<br>
relatively centralised systems (eg micropayments), and more<br>
interestingly the combination of a secure and decentralised layer 1<br>
plus choices of less decentralised layer 2 options, can be interesting<br>
because the layer 2 is provided cover from attack.=C2=A0 There is less to<b=
r>
be gained by attacking relatively centralised layer 2 because any<br>
payments at risk of policy abuse (which is typically a small subset)<br>
can easily switch to layer 1.=C2=A0 That in itself makes layer 2<br>
transactions also less susceptible to policy abuse.=C2=A0 Further lightning=
<br>
it appears from work so far should add significant scale while<br>
retaining trustlessness and a good degree of decentralisation.<br>
<br>
Finally you seem to be focusing on "artificial" limits where that=
is<br>
not the issue under consideration.=C2=A0 The limits are technical and<br>
relating to decentralisation and security.=C2=A0 I wont go over them again<=
br>
as this topic has been covered many times in recent months.=C2=A0 Any chain=
<br>
that tried to go to extreme parameters (very low block intervals, or<br>
very large blocksizes) would have the same decentralisation problems<br>
as Bitcoin would if it did the same thing.=C2=A0 There are a number of alt<=
br>
coins that have failed as a result of poor parameter choices, there<br>
are inherent security limits.<br>
<br>
Adam<br>
<br>
ps Etiquette note for yourself and others: please dont be repetitive<br>
or attempt to be forceful.=C2=A0 Many people have spent many years<br>
understanding this very complex system, from my own experience it is<br>
rare indeed to think of an entirely new concept or analysis, that<br>
hasnt' been long considered and put to bed 3 or 4 years ago.<br>
Thoughtful polite and constructive comments are welcome but I<br>
recommend to not start from an assumption that you have a clear and<br>
better insight than the entire technical community, because I have to<br>
say from my own experience that is very rarely the case.=C2=A0 It can be<br=
>
useful to test theories on #bitcoin IRC channel to find out what has<br>
been already concluded, find the references and avoid having to have<br>
that hashed out on this list which is trying to be focussed on<br>
technical solutions.<br>
<br>
<br>
On 29 July 2015 at 16:10, Raystonn . via bitcoin-dev<br>
<<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_bla=
nk">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>> wrote:<br>
>> Cheapest way to send value? Is this what Bitcoin is trying to do? =
So<br>
>> all of the smart contract, programmable money, consensus coding an=
d<br>
>> tremendous developer effort is bent to the consumer demand for che=
aper<br>
>> fees. Surely thou jests!<br>
><br>
><br>
> These other features can be replicated into any alternative blockchain=
,<br>
> including those with lower fees.=C2=A0 In the open-source world of<br>
> cryptocurrency, no feature will remain a value-add for very long after=
it<br>
> has been identified to be such.=C2=A0 Anything adding value will quick=
ly be<br>
> absorbed into competing alternative blockchains.=C2=A0 That will leave=
economic<br>
> policy as the distinguishing factor.<br>
><br>
>> ... it is not the case ... that reluctance to concede<br>
>> blocksize is an attempt to constrain capacity. Greg Maxwell thorou=
ghly<br>
>> explained in this thread that the protocol's current state of<=
br>
>> development relies on=C2=A0 blocksize for security and, ultimately=
, as a<br>
>> means of protecting its degree of decentralization.<br>
><br>
><br>
> A slow or lack of increase to maximum transaction rate will cause pres=
sure<br>
> on fees.=C2=A0 Whether this is the desired goal is not relevant.=C2=A0=
Everyone has<br>
> agreed this will be the outcome.=C2=A0 As to a smaller block size bein=
g needed<br>
> for additional decentralization, one must simply ask how much we are a=
ll<br>
> willing to pay for that additional decentralization.=C2=A0 It is likel=
y that the<br>
> benefit thereto will have to be demonstrated by some power attacking a=
nd<br>
> destroying a less decentralized currency before the benefit of this fe=
ature<br>
> is given monetary value by the market.=C2=A0 Until then, value will bl=
eed to the<br>
> network with the least friction, because it will have the greatest abi=
lity<br>
> to grow its network effect.=C2=A0 That means the blockchain with adequ=
ate<br>
> features and cheapest fees will eventually have the largest market sha=
re.<br>
><br>
><br>
> -----Original Message----- From: Venzen Khaosan<br>
> Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2015 3:11 PM<br>
> To: Raystonn .<br>
> Cc: <a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D=
"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
> Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Why Satoshi's temporary anti-spam measu=
re<br>
> isn'ttemporary<br>
><br>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----<br>
> Hash: SHA1<br>
><br>
> Raystonn, I'm aware that you're addressing your question to Gr=
eg<br>
> Maxwell, however a point you keep stating as fact calls for reference:=
<br>
><br>
> On 07/30/2015 04:28 AM, Raystonn . via bitcoin-dev wrote:<br>
> [snip]<br>
>><br>
>> How do you plan to address the bleeding of value from Bitcoin to<b=
r>
>> alternative lower-fee blockchains created by the artificially-high=
<br>
>> bitcoin transaction fees when users begin looking for the cheapest=
<br>
>> way to send value?<br>
><br>
> Cheapest way to send value? Is this what Bitcoin is trying to do? So<b=
r>
> all of the smart contract, programmable money, consensus coding and<br=
>
> tremendous developer effort is bent to the consumer demand for cheaper=
<br>
> fees. Surely thou jests!<br>
><br>
>> Modern economic study has shown that liquidity moves to the<br>
>> location of least friction.<br>
><br>
> Modern economic study? Can you please provide a link or reference to<b=
r>
> the study you are referring to.<br>
><br>
> "liquidity moves to the location of least friction"<br>
><br>
> This sounds like "econo-speak" and makes no sense. The defin=
ition of<br>
> Liquidity is the degree to which an asset/security can be bought or<br=
>
> sold in the market without affecting the price.<br>
><br>
> That is why bitcoin is said to have low liquidity: buying or selling<b=
r>
> only 100 BTC visibly affects the exchange price. You probably mean<br>
> "people like cheap fees", which is true, but as others have =
said,<br>
> because of Bitcoin's powerful features, they are willing to pay hi=
gher<br>
> fees and wait longer for transactions to execute.<br>
><br>
> As for your public cross-examination of Greg Maxwell, your case seems<=
br>
> to=C2=A0 be made on the assumption that limiting the size of the block=
chain<br>
> is an attempt to artificially raise tx fees, but it is not the case<br=
>
> (as you and others repeatedly argue) that reluctance to concede<br>
> blocksize is an attempt to constrain capacity. Greg Maxwell thoroughly=
<br>
> explained in this thread that the protocol's current state of<br>
> development relies on=C2=A0 blocksize for security and, ultimately, as=
a<br>
> means of protecting its degree of decentralization.<br>
><br>
> Surely, this is an obvious concern even for those who are campaigning<=
br>
> for the hare-brained ideal of making Bitcoin a "faster, cheaper<b=
r>
> alternative" to visa or paypal? If we lose decentralization, we l=
ose<br>
> the whole thing, right? Incorrect or correct?<br>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----<br>
> Version: GnuPG v1<br>
><br>
> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJVuU+rAAoJEGwAhlQc8H1m9nkH/00xXJ53H4qvHjPrdNRniwvB<br>
> RXi96QjbnVj/fxU2J2TBPYF1LxJ13avyL58bbaJF7GKqcpoYNZArCKLQyGaZGCTp<br>
> h7Oe/0S+b1QCrvxcVK8Ikeb7a1h9wnhAPf1FvAWoJ1cFGx/qGHetKqx1dQTWkVWz<br>
> Mp17vjaofmp2OhBzh0Smj+wV9hXn9w9giZKc6UGvC0Qc7Rf3GL/YVJzM2CZNvlLS<br>
> YhQSqnnqduugYztqLV/NvNExF41zC2IMyNmA41q46v/nh8stNSIcJleD39csNMfx<br>
> BXjrlnPfZ+JI4RhiH3I0qjOYWPtBH9od788DY509EOn3MT4vU+EVcQaxyuFqZyw=3D<br>
> =3DlQvy<br>
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----<br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
> <a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_bl=
ank">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=
/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">=
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>
</blockquote></div></div>
--047d7b471dbeae37f9051c1076c4--
|