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
|
Return-Path: <hectorchu@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BDEC267
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 9 Aug 2015 05:53:00 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-la0-f51.google.com (mail-la0-f51.google.com
[209.85.215.51])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2E915106
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 9 Aug 2015 05:52:59 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by labd1 with SMTP id d1so26130455lab.1
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sat, 08 Aug 2015 22:52:57 -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=Swsb7U29ryUMfMhYv5cjz1WJoy5ncXIHZ6Lorx+80xs=;
b=VWywBD0UDVypHXb5aIAF03/rjzcimj9bnB6ZgD3pGQr4X0gC+8mEEWiCOSaSEmTSXP
iVlD2IGc/YAzukgqWv613CY6l/WQqGFSd5Hhx8bdlEikD37IUmZojrfaCcTvXwhr6Hv7
zGj17o7P1PZFZgbkSDcerQb5rGjeLtGugBciNhEtqDrVQSwPQWfFd3iLF+h6ZnBT014W
hzdekCAUHssGvfQ2JupW3MMbD/AnwqC9hZ65WK7k1RgBrJsgcLS5gG52jft3K0qRAKdT
0HlXtX8rVyCOLm4CHtpPMGhSfCZW0PMOoqqwNmjGKaR8U8CpeQxyqrYx4zGjEu0W9vC7
b72w==
X-Received: by 10.152.36.226 with SMTP id t2mr15251177laj.6.1439099577113;
Sat, 08 Aug 2015 22:52:57 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.25.22.25 with HTTP; Sat, 8 Aug 2015 22:52:37 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CFD5F030-D518-4998-93BD-A19054C54058@gmail.com>
References: <CABsx9T16fH+56isq95m4+QWsKwP==tf75ep8ghnEcBoV4OtZJA@mail.gmail.com>
<CABsx9T10y6-=c7Qg6jysnf38wRX3NA3wWozxGfE+mEYJvPeqWA@mail.gmail.com>
<CABm2gDpwMQzju+Gsoe3qMi60MPr7OAiSuigy3RdA1xh-SwFzbw@mail.gmail.com>
<2586092.4ZtH253X8E@coldstorage>
<CALqxMTGDET0dEuw9bi=LBXF8jiuLdoPoGYaDCPpXtPvqeDW30A@mail.gmail.com>
<CAGLBAhcfUv0ptwczgCkgwVxo7d=pK4GLowkwV2viqAbq6vRaDQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CFD5F030-D518-4998-93BD-A19054C54058@gmail.com>
From: Hector Chu <hectorchu@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 9 Aug 2015 06:52:37 +0100
Message-ID: <CAAO2FKH_DKrFYfDR1-q0GrM5cHFtQQcYtECXKzzrUybfTSeh-A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Alex Morcos <morcos@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0158b5e61727a9051cda7b14
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] 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: Sun, 09 Aug 2015 05:53:00 -0000
--089e0158b5e61727a9051cda7b14
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
You people are the most selfish kind of people in the world. Blackmail
developers with overload of the system, to try to force them to urgently
come up with solutions to the problem. The solution is always going to
be... wait for it... "increase the block size". There is not enough time or
manpower to do anything else. We are witnessing a tragedy of the commons
before our very eyes.
On 9 August 2015 at 00:05, Alex Morcos via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> I agree
> There are a lot of difficult technical problems introduced by insufficient
> block space that are best addressed now. As well as problems that scale
> will exacerbate like bootstrapping that we should develop solutions for
> first.
>
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Aug 8, 2015, at 6:45 PM, Dave Scotese via bitcoin-dev <
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> I see value in lowering the block size or leaving it where it is. We
> expect to run out of space, and I think it's a good idea to prepare for
> that, rather than avoid it. When we run out of space and the block size is
> low, we will see problems. If we raise the block size, we will NOT see
> these problems until bitcoin is bigger and more important and the pressure
> is higher.
>
> Someone mentioned that when the backlog grows faster than it shrinks, that
> is a real problem. I don't think it is. It is a problem for those who
> don't wait for even one confirmation, but backlogs in the past have already
> started training users to wait for at least one confirmation, or go
> off-chain. I am comfortable leaving those zero-conf people in a little bit
> of trouble. Everyone else can double-spend (perhaps that's not as easy as
> it should be in bitcoin core) and use a higher fee, thus competing for
> block space. Yes, $5 transactions suck, but $0.15 is not so bad and about
> twice the average right now.
>
> Meanwhile, the higher fees everyone starts feeling like paying, along with
> the visibility of the problems caused by full-blocks, will provide
> excellent justification and motivation for increasing the limit. My
> favorite thing to do is to have a solution ready for a problem I expect to
> see, see the problem (so I can measure things about it) and then implement
> the solution.
>
> In my experience, the single biggest reason not to run a full node has to
> do with starting from scratch: "I used to run a full node, but last time I
> had to download the full blockchain, it took ___ days, so I just use (some
> wallet) now." I think that has been improved with headers-first, but many
> people don't know it.
>
> I have some ideas how a "full node" could postpone being "full" but still
> be nearly completely operational so that the delay between startup and
> having a full blockchain is nearly painless. It involves bonded
> representation of important not-so-large pieces of data (blocks that have
> my transactions, the complete UTXO as of some height, etc.). If I know
> that I have some btc, I could offer it (say, 100 or 1000 transaction fees'
> worth) to anyone who will guarantee good data to me, and then when I have
> the whole blockchain, I will know if they were honest. If done right, the
> whole network could know whether or not they were honest and enforce the
> bond if they weren't. Credit the Lightening paper for parts of this idea.
>
> Dave
>
> On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 4:06 PM, Adam Back via bitcoin-dev <
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
>> Please try to focus on constructive technical comments.
>>
>> On 7 August 2015 at 23:12, Thomas Zander via bitcoin-dev
>> <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>> > What will the backlash be when people here that are pushing for
>> "off-chain-
>> > transactions" fail to produce a properly working alternative, which
>> > essentially means we have to say NO to more users.
>>
>> But > 99% of Bitcoin transactions are already off-chain. There are
>> multiple competing companies offering consumer & retail service with
>> off-chain settlement.
>>
>> I wasnt clear but it seemed in your previous mail that you seemed to
>> say you dont mind trusting other people with your money, and so
>> presumably you are OK using these services, and so have no problem?
>>
>> > At this time and this size of bitcoin community, my personal experience
>> (and
>> > I've been part of many communities) saying NO to new customers
>>
>> Who said no to anything? The systems of off-chain transfer already
>> exist and are by comparison to Bitcoins protocol simple and rapid to
>> adapt and scale.
>>
>> Indications are that we can even do off-chain at scale with Bitcoin
>> similar trust-minimisation with lightning, and duplex payment
>> channels; and people are working on that right now.
>>
>> I think it would be interesting and useful for someone, with an
>> interest in low trust, high scale transactions, to work on and propose
>> an interoperability standard and API for such off-chain services to be
>> accessed by wallets, and perhaps periodic on-chain inter-service
>> netting.
>>
>> Adam
>> _______________________________________________
>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>>
>
>
>
> --
> I like to provide some work at no charge to prove my value. Do you need a
> techie?
> I own Litmocracy <http://www.litmocracy.com> and Meme Racing
> <http://www.memeracing.net> (in alpha).
> I'm the webmaster for The Voluntaryist <http://www.voluntaryist.com>
> which now accepts Bitcoin.
> I also code for The Dollar Vigilante <http://dollarvigilante.com/>.
> "He ought to find it more profitable to play by the rules" - Satoshi
> Nakamoto
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
--089e0158b5e61727a9051cda7b14
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr">You people are the most selfish kind of people in the worl=
d. Blackmail developers with overload of the system, to try to force them t=
o urgently come up with solutions to the problem. The solution is always go=
ing to be... wait for it... "increase the block size". There is n=
ot enough time or manpower to do anything else. We are witnessing a tragedy=
of the commons before our very eyes.</div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><=
div class=3D"gmail_quote">On 9 August 2015 at 00:05, Alex Morcos via bitcoi=
n-dev <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfounda=
tion.org" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>></=
span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8e=
x;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"auto"><div><div>=
I agree</div><div>There are a lot of difficult technical problems introduce=
d by insufficient block space that are best addressed now.=C2=A0 As well as=
problems that scale will exacerbate like bootstrapping that we should deve=
lop solutions for first. =C2=A0</div><div><br></div><br>Sent from my iPad</=
div><div><div class=3D"h5"><div><br>On Aug 8, 2015, at 6:45 PM, Dave Scotes=
e via bitcoin-dev <<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.o=
rg" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>> wrote:<=
br><br></div><blockquote type=3D"cite"><div><div dir=3D"ltr"><div><div><div=
><div>I see value in lowering the block size or leaving it where it is. We =
expect to run out of space, and I think it's a good idea to prepare for=
that, rather than avoid it.=C2=A0 When we run out of space and the block s=
ize is low, we will see problems.=C2=A0 If we raise the block size, we will=
NOT see these problems until bitcoin is bigger and more important and the =
pressure is higher.<br><br></div>Someone mentioned that when the backlog gr=
ows faster than it shrinks, that is a real problem.=C2=A0 I don't think=
it is.=C2=A0 It is a problem for those who don't wait for even one con=
firmation, but backlogs in the past have already started training users to =
wait for at least one confirmation, or go off-chain.=C2=A0 I am comfortable=
leaving those zero-conf people in a little bit of trouble.=C2=A0 Everyone =
else can double-spend (perhaps that's not as easy as it should be in bi=
tcoin core) and use a higher fee, thus competing for block space.=C2=A0 Yes=
, $5 transactions suck, but $0.15 is not so bad and about twice the average=
right now.<br><br></div>Meanwhile, the higher fees everyone starts feeling=
like paying, along with the visibility of the problems caused by full-bloc=
ks, will provide excellent justification and motivation for increasing the =
limit.=C2=A0 My favorite thing to do is to have a solution ready for a prob=
lem I expect to see, see the problem (so I can measure things about it) and=
then implement the solution.<br><br></div>In my experience, the single big=
gest reason not to run a full node has to do with starting from scratch: &q=
uot;I used to run a full node, but last time I had to download the full blo=
ckchain, it took ___ days, so I just use (some wallet) now."=C2=A0 I t=
hink that has been improved with headers-first, but many people don't k=
now it.<br><br></div><div>I have some ideas how a "full node" cou=
ld postpone being "full" but still be nearly completely operation=
al so that the delay between startup and having a full blockchain is nearly=
painless.=C2=A0 It involves bonded representation of important not-so-larg=
e pieces of data (blocks that have my transactions, the complete UTXO as of=
some height, etc.).=C2=A0 If I know that I have some btc, I could offer it=
(say, 100 or 1000 transaction fees' worth) to anyone who will guarante=
e good data to me, and then when I have the whole blockchain, I will know i=
f they were honest.=C2=A0 If done right, the whole network could know wheth=
er or not they were honest and enforce the bond if they weren't.=C2=A0 =
Credit the Lightening paper for parts of this idea.<br></div><div><br></div=
>Dave<br></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On=
Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 4:06 PM, Adam Back via bitcoin-dev <span dir=3D"ltr">&=
lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blan=
k">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquo=
te class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc so=
lid;padding-left:1ex">Please try to focus on constructive technical comment=
s.<br>
<br>
On 7 August 2015 at 23:12, Thomas Zander via bitcoin-dev<br>
<span><<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=
=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>> wrote:<br>
> What will the backlash be when people here that are pushing for "=
off-chain-<br>
> transactions" fail to produce a properly working alternative, whi=
ch<br>
> essentially means we have to say NO to more users.<br>
<br>
</span>But > 99% of Bitcoin transactions are already off-chain.=C2=A0 Th=
ere are<br>
multiple competing companies offering consumer & retail service with<br=
>
off-chain settlement.<br>
<br>
I wasnt clear but it seemed in your previous mail that you seemed to<br>
say you dont mind trusting other people with your money, and so<br>
presumably you are OK using these services, and so have no problem?<br>
<span><br>
> At this time and this size of bitcoin community, my personal experienc=
e (and<br>
> I've been part of many communities) saying NO to new customers<br>
<br>
</span>Who said no to anything?=C2=A0 The systems of off-chain transfer alr=
eady<br>
exist and are by comparison to Bitcoins protocol simple and rapid to<br>
adapt and scale.<br>
<br>
Indications are that we can even do off-chain at scale with Bitcoin<br>
similar trust-minimisation with lightning, and duplex payment<br>
channels; and people are working on that right now.<br>
<br>
I think it would be interesting and useful for someone, with an<br>
interest in low trust, high scale transactions, to work on and propose<br>
an interoperability standard and API for such off-chain services to be<br>
accessed by wallets, and perhaps periodic on-chain inter-service<br>
netting.<br>
<br>
Adam<br>
<div><div>_______________________________________________<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>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear=3D"all"><br>-- <br><div><div d=
ir=3D"ltr">I like to provide some work at no charge to prove my value. Do y=
ou need a techie?=C2=A0 <br>I own <a href=3D"http://www.litmocracy.com" tar=
get=3D"_blank">Litmocracy</a> and <a href=3D"http://www.memeracing.net" tar=
get=3D"_blank">Meme Racing</a> (in alpha). <br>I'm the webmaster for <a=
href=3D"http://www.voluntaryist.com" target=3D"_blank">The Voluntaryist</a=
> which now accepts Bitcoin.<br>I also code for <a href=3D"http://dollarvig=
ilante.com/" target=3D"_blank">The Dollar Vigilante</a>.<br>"He ought =
to find it more profitable to play by the rules" - Satoshi Nakamoto</d=
iv></div>
</div>
</div></blockquote><blockquote type=3D"cite"><div><span>___________________=
____________________________</span><br><span>bitcoin-dev mailing list</span=
><br><span><a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=
=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a></span><br><span><a hr=
ef=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" targe=
t=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev=
</a></span><br></div></blockquote></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>
--089e0158b5e61727a9051cda7b14--
|
