path: root/c1/dce74dbb8adb9598b7fe385f7ded34a0edb8dd

Return-Path: <mark@friedenbach.org>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
	[172.17.192.35])
	by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 98C94273
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Sat, 27 Jun 2015 16:28:47 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-ig0-f180.google.com (mail-ig0-f180.google.com
	[209.85.213.180])
	by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 93710144
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Sat, 27 Jun 2015 16:28:46 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by igblr2 with SMTP id lr2so30527751igb.0
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Sat, 27 Jun 2015 09:28:46 -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:from:date
	:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type;
	bh=WInebCCupIrlOp5AMOtbd6h+KSO+wspWVHGrgVztNAY=;
	b=hXnjVzbB/v4ZxqySgAdVMeIzwSXvCA2fEcWjUwAdlDIPc9pAmF71SYb2rZgwPwfYpW
	EeJ7mM3/nlVnyGjL3LsYUjDGESqT3bYT+SIrMDpf/WY4VPXCu98Ml2+/+EolJMM6q4ei
	gJ7gGZYSk6kpJl3DGyC0S1uiCPZ4htl8SmM1V+Y1d4wUOOSRxx1gISWDV0FdywhgbXpN
	ICa3KioatX4KIE63L4aEqUL6PSQOiP5GTEnsT+KO0XiIStKlLHZ688IyPX81D60nE4jZ
	nshhUiut4s7L/zPIexaztsHUZS8q2HiTeDtAo0KVzdam7qXYXi3Sl16d6iGV8SO/dWXv
	EXGQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlgJxUW4YNNyBN7fQZBU7vBMvmSAoS8E/YIjqPYD0TlvhD+NEmf7fAaMJxY6BN81dYm8CSg
X-Received: by 10.50.143.38 with SMTP id sb6mr4748929igb.44.1435422525961;
	Sat, 27 Jun 2015 09:28:45 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.107.149.20 with HTTP; Sat, 27 Jun 2015 09:28:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Originating-IP: [50.0.37.37]
In-Reply-To: <CALgxB7tdFsQXzGRje=suC7Yaym_Whhtn2qrb3ykx2ZOBwwbE7w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CALgxB7udA85BWetBGc-RN=72ZtVPK9Q5HW8YRDKA08M38XqJqQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CALqxMTHjszPcf=S20kquF=5y3zfYb+foP6tL1okOT2jhdrW08A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CALgxB7tdFsQXzGRje=suC7Yaym_Whhtn2qrb3ykx2ZOBwwbE7w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mark Friedenbach <mark@friedenbach.org>
Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2015 09:28:26 -0700
Message-ID: <CAOG=w-vxvPpkUohtNKE1PjWXFpNzEbm7cn-ka_Ayi_6vokUOKw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Michael Naber <mickeybob@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1135ffb8c353ad0519825904
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,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@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] A Proposed Compromise to the Block Size Limit
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: Sat, 27 Jun 2015 16:28:47 -0000

--001a1135ffb8c353ad0519825904
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I really suggest you look into the layer2 systems Adam pointed to, as you
appear to be misinformed about their properties. There are many proposals
which really do achieve global consensus using the block chain, just in a
delayed (and cached) fashion that is still 100% safe.

It is possible to go off-chain without losing the trustlessness and
security of the block chain.

On Sat, Jun 27, 2015 at 9:09 AM, Michael Naber <mickeybob@gmail.com> wrote:

> The goal of Bitcoin Core is to meet the demand for global consensus as
> effectively as possible. Please let's keep the conversation on how to bes=
t
> meet that goal.
>
> The off-chain solutions you enumerate are are useful solutions in their
> respective domains, but none of them solves the global consensus problem
> with any greater efficiency than Bitcoin does.
>
>
> On Sat, Jun 27, 2015 at 11:33 AM, Adam Back <adam@cypherspace.org> wrote:
>
>> Michael Naber wrote:
>> > Bitcoin Core must remain the lowest-fee, highest-capacity, most secure=
,
>> distributed, fastest, overall best solution possible to the global
>> consensus problem.
>>
>> Everyone here is excited about the potential of Bitcoin and would
>> aspirationally like it to reach its full potential as fast as
>> possible.  But the block-size is not a free variable, half those
>> parameters you listed are in conflict with each other.  We're trying
>> to improve both decentralisation and throughput short-term while
>> people work on algorithmic improvements mid-term.  If you are
>> interested you can take a look through the proposals:
>>
>>
>> http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-June/008603.=
html
>>
>> Note that probably 99% of Bitcoin transactions already happen
>> off-chain in exchanges, tipping services, hosted wallets etc.  Maybe
>> you're already using them, assuming you are a bitcoin user.
>> They constitute an early stage layer 2, some of them even have on
>> chain netting and scale faster than the block-chain.
>>
>> You can also read about layer 2, the lightning network paper and the
>> duplex micropayment channel paper:
>>
>> http://lightning.network/lightning-network-paper-DRAFT-0.5.pdf
>>
>> http://www.tik.ee.ethz.ch/file/716b955c130e6c703fac336ea17b1670/duplex-m=
icropayment-channels.pdf
>>
>> and read the development list and look at the code:
>>
>> http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/
>> https://github.com/ElementsProject/lightning
>>
>> Adam
>>
>>
>> On 27 June 2015 at 16:39, Michael Naber <mickeybob@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Demand to participate in a low-fee global consensus network will likel=
y
>> > continue to rise. Technology already exists to meet that rising demand
>> using
>> > a blockchain with sufficient block size. Whether that blockchain is
>> Bitcoin
>> > Core with an increased block size, or whether it is a fork, market
>> forces
>> > make it almost certain that demand will be met by a blockchain with
>> adequate
>> > capacity. These forces ensure that not only today=E2=80=99s block size=
 will be
>> > increased, but also that future increases will occur should the demand
>> > arise.
>> >
>> > In order to survive, Bitcoin Core must remain the lowest-fee,
>> > highest-capacity, most secure, distributed, fastest, overall best
>> solution
>> > possible to the global consensus problem. Attempting to artificially
>> > constrain the block size below the limits of technology for any reason
>> is a
>> > conflict with this objective and a threat to the survival of Bitcoin
>> Core.
>> > At the same time, scheduling large future increases or permitting
>> unlimited
>> > dynamic scaling of the block size limit raises concerns over
>> availability of
>> > future computing resources. Instead, we should manually increase the
>> block
>> > size limit as demand occurs, except in the special case that increasin=
g
>> the
>> > limit would cause an undue burden upon users wishing to validate the
>> > integrity of the blockchain.
>> >
>> > Compromise: Can we agree that raising the block size to a static 8MB n=
ow
>> > with a plan to increase it further should demand necessitate except in
>> the
>> > special case above is a reasonable path forward?
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > 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
>
>

--001a1135ffb8c353ad0519825904
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div>I really suggest you look into the layer2 systems Ada=
m pointed to, as you appear to be misinformed about their properties. There=
 are many proposals which really do achieve global consensus using the bloc=
k chain, just in a delayed (and cached) fashion that is still 100% safe.<br=
><br></div>It is possible to go off-chain without losing the trustlessness =
and security of the block chain.<br></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><d=
iv class=3D"gmail_quote">On Sat, Jun 27, 2015 at 9:09 AM, Michael Naber <sp=
an dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:mickeybob@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank"=
>mickeybob@gmail.com</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_qu=
ote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex=
"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div>The goal of Bitcoin Core is to meet the demand for =
global consensus as effectively as possible. Please let&#39;s keep the conv=
ersation on how to best meet that goal.<br></div><div><br></div><div>The of=
f-chain solutions you enumerate are are useful solutions in their respectiv=
e domains, but none of them solves the global consensus problem with any gr=
eater efficiency than Bitcoin does.<br></div><br></div><div class=3D"HOEnZb=
"><div class=3D"h5"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quot=
e">On Sat, Jun 27, 2015 at 11:33 AM, Adam Back <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a hre=
f=3D"mailto:adam@cypherspace.org" target=3D"_blank">adam@cypherspace.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"><span>Michael Naber w=
rote:<br>
&gt; Bitcoin Core must remain the lowest-fee, highest-capacity, most secure=
, distributed, fastest, overall best solution possible to the global consen=
sus problem.<br>
<br>
</span>Everyone here is excited about the potential of Bitcoin and would<br=
>
aspirationally like it to reach its full potential as fast as<br>
possible.=C2=A0 But the block-size is not a free variable, half those<br>
parameters you listed are in conflict with each other.=C2=A0 We&#39;re tryi=
ng<br>
to improve both decentralisation and throughput short-term while<br>
people work on algorithmic improvements mid-term.=C2=A0 If you are<br>
interested you can take a look through the proposals:<br>
<br>
<a href=3D"http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-June=
/008603.html" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">http://lists.linuxfounda=
tion.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-June/008603.html</a><br>
<br>
Note that probably 99% of Bitcoin transactions already happen<br>
off-chain in exchanges, tipping services, hosted wallets etc.=C2=A0 Maybe<b=
r>
you&#39;re already using them, assuming you are a bitcoin user.<br>
They constitute an early stage layer 2, some of them even have on<br>
chain netting and scale faster than the block-chain.<br>
<br>
You can also read about layer 2, the lightning network paper and the<br>
duplex micropayment channel paper:<br>
<br>
<a href=3D"http://lightning.network/lightning-network-paper-DRAFT-0.5.pdf" =
rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">http://lightning.network/lightning-net=
work-paper-DRAFT-0.5.pdf</a><br>
<a href=3D"http://www.tik.ee.ethz.ch/file/716b955c130e6c703fac336ea17b1670/=
duplex-micropayment-channels.pdf" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">http=
://www.tik.ee.ethz.ch/file/716b955c130e6c703fac336ea17b1670/duplex-micropay=
ment-channels.pdf</a><br>
<br>
and read the development list and look at the code:<br>
<br>
<a href=3D"http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/" rel=
=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermai=
l/lightning-dev/</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://github.com/ElementsProject/lightning" rel=3D"noreferrer"=
 target=3D"_blank">https://github.com/ElementsProject/lightning</a><br>
<br>
Adam<br>
<div><div><br>
<br>
On 27 June 2015 at 16:39, Michael Naber &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:mickeybob@gma=
il.com" target=3D"_blank">mickeybob@gmail.com</a>&gt; wrote:<br>
&gt; Demand to participate in a low-fee global consensus network will likel=
y<br>
&gt; continue to rise. Technology already exists to meet that rising demand=
 using<br>
&gt; a blockchain with sufficient block size. Whether that blockchain is Bi=
tcoin<br>
&gt; Core with an increased block size, or whether it is a fork, market for=
ces<br>
&gt; make it almost certain that demand will be met by a blockchain with ad=
equate<br>
&gt; capacity. These forces ensure that not only today=E2=80=99s block size=
 will be<br>
&gt; increased, but also that future increases will occur should the demand=
<br>
&gt; arise.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; In order to survive, Bitcoin Core must remain the lowest-fee,<br>
&gt; highest-capacity, most secure, distributed, fastest, overall best solu=
tion<br>
&gt; possible to the global consensus problem. Attempting to artificially<b=
r>
&gt; constrain the block size below the limits of technology for any reason=
 is a<br>
&gt; conflict with this objective and a threat to the survival of Bitcoin C=
ore.<br>
&gt; At the same time, scheduling large future increases or permitting unli=
mited<br>
&gt; dynamic scaling of the block size limit raises concerns over availabil=
ity of<br>
&gt; future computing resources. Instead, we should manually increase the b=
lock<br>
&gt; size limit as demand occurs, except in the special case that increasin=
g the<br>
&gt; limit would cause an undue burden upon users wishing to validate the<b=
r>
&gt; integrity of the blockchain.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; Compromise: Can we agree that raising the block size to a static 8MB n=
ow<br>
&gt; with a plan to increase it further should demand necessitate except in=
 the<br>
&gt; special case above is a reasonable path forward?<br>
&gt;<br>
</div></div>&gt; _______________________________________________<br>
&gt; bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
&gt; <a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_bl=
ank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
&gt; <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>
&gt;<br>
</blockquote></div><br></div>
</div></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>

--001a1135ffb8c353ad0519825904--