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
|
Return-Path: <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 25ABB8E6
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 6 Aug 2015 15:26:13 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-ig0-f178.google.com (mail-ig0-f178.google.com
[209.85.213.178])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 92690169
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 6 Aug 2015 15:26:12 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by igbpg9 with SMTP id pg9so13776086igb.0
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 06 Aug 2015 08:26:12 -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=vM51bwQKAvRw71brbYC06eZQTsfyW4/pkvu8/E4nZv0=;
b=IUt+rXX+/zKjhgc7jzpd+Jr//PGXBtSGdcB9zGxg/Gri3e8vB06R3Xn0I742pFwnQj
0o+fTe67u35Zj+RpQm1NU5b39ay4tjV0/NzI5sTJWCLUV65gFl0R0qeOF6dnamd8dmH0
lZe37va65B+x11bNDs3sGtlG/WuO0/yczxNQk+Pgddsv7SKZ9wkiu9zoDIEcVDopCQvs
a4k+OGZd5tzy/CrYTMOrJ5KeumG/zh/OUPN1dakU8XpkMdfU8fCFJ6kn7oxNtsFHt+NY
n0jhr1umgt5Zdukt3aUYnllgis9FBumRKM5qQM3Se/0Paczgrgyzn2tK+PzgX/t0ne5/
TBLQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.50.93.69 with SMTP id cs5mr1780150igb.4.1438874772049; Thu,
06 Aug 2015 08:26:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.36.77.201 with HTTP; Thu, 6 Aug 2015 08:26:11 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CABsx9T1tujBCwydDC_q6d=qV1DiA0PE=fMHCpAJVjv84rx_RSw@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>
Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2015 17:26:11 +0200
Message-ID: <CAPg+sBhn-Gw7x6RNCo39b_GoS+BmSa0bckjaJGz-uK1QEwp4zQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>
To: Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e01537ed8aa168e051ca6237c
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 15:26:13 -0000
--089e01537ed8aa168e051ca6237c
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
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
--089e01537ed8aa168e051ca6237c
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr"><div><span class=3D"im">On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 5:06 PM, Ga=
vin Andresen <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:gavinandresen@gmail.co=
m" target=3D"_blank">gavinandresen@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br></spa=
n><span class=3D"im"><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 c=
lass=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><span>On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 a=
t 10:53 AM, Pieter Wuille <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:pieter.wu=
ille@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">pieter.wuille@gmail.com</a>></span> wr=
ote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border=
-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-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'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'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><div>Th=
e
network can "handle" 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'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 "handle=
" a
particular rate is not a boolean question. It's a question of how much=
=20
security, centralization, and risk for systemic error we're willing to=
=20
tolerate. These are not things you can just observe, so let's keep=20
talking about the risks, and find a solution that we agree on.<br><br></div=
><span class=3D"im"><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 cl=
ass=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><span><div>=C2=A0</div><bloc=
kquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #cc=
c solid;padding-left:1ex">
If so, why is 8 MB good but 1 MB not? To me, they're a small constant=
=20
factor that does not fundamentally improve the scale of the system.</blockq=
uote><div><br></div></span><div>"better
is better" -- 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're facing.</div></div></div></div></blockquote>=
<div><br></div></span><div>I
don'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"im"><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 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">
I dislike the outlook of "being forever locked at the same scale"=
; 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'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><div>=
Maybe. But I believe that it is essential to not take unnecessary risks, an=
d find a non-controversial solution.<br><br></div>-- <br></div>Pieter<br><b=
r></div>
--089e01537ed8aa168e051ca6237c--
|
