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
|
Return-Path: <david.vorick@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CA446B93
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 30 Mar 2017 11:19:22 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-wr0-f173.google.com (mail-wr0-f173.google.com
[209.85.128.173])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3A1E8124
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 30 Mar 2017 11:19:22 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-wr0-f173.google.com with SMTP id w43so55930822wrb.0
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 30 Mar 2017 04:19:22 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025;
h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to
:cc; bh=CS5w6eFd9YtVDoLyUZWxtRSvzfEwm6x6cAzIM/P1Y6o=;
b=lHO7E6+6zyLPLmOITcXE+V/zRXeiKs8pC+nthxevWEIFtkl1Y+LQI1jguG8e3q94wW
XCV4YHrSh5FGK5A0/EpGQcSH1zNnr+Wz7ls6cuLYEIj5Qv+Gl20IIAYHlsmNyl6LHt9+
sLAUKjqxdeyY0nAW+B8cAAphOYsyvAvC+Tv8S6gUuUBcn+HuXia5YDz2RE3l0sewnmJy
FflMQ/dBaRfPeMuEhk0hCQiTJpPNuVoMr2I3kbhk3II8P8CJYwebysA1vQTwi/MGSHC4
ZpvmMYCaecscsnmEhenr+vQrKgCirV05q6So/BbxozYl1Y2PkS7JxEda0JYqWp2C7iJb
BqwQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20161025;
h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date
:message-id:subject:to:cc;
bh=CS5w6eFd9YtVDoLyUZWxtRSvzfEwm6x6cAzIM/P1Y6o=;
b=NDwPVK1DcICdrc6Ce24qMSWJuuVgBYJBJ9uLK63ihcUx6XCKdioL1x6mBIW6wb/0hF
gmUKtlh3MIwpxVxC8UnaqCM/ynDceMXiI4KAr8blBjkBtSvge2hWIU34Yvq9cMvib6K2
9gavMScDgmsnDy/ZTnM6cjUZK/q7mSggAqdit6aWeeGf6sDspsFQPWosop9+0gBQ6YFw
mCjLc1ZKe3JH4L2YdWTPNMrCK/CgR+/hdHN9YSjseDeCpLCkIcJ/nLdoeKNXM1bWQHaP
Xy+yTJnFAVs2zhPpRfcQUF8cGfcczDdy708JdrjQ7MxPp1AqLrZS7pSWx/CZN2DgnHzM
nGUw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H3fzgzTaSET9svdOoJEN6Iu+tbfVBvNe0xzFTLxVuDq8DySaZy1v8GfzBIcXfqhigI71/c/5CBT6KtilA==
X-Received: by 10.28.139.134 with SMTP id n128mr2825038wmd.132.1490872760604;
Thu, 30 Mar 2017 04:19:20 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.28.55.9 with HTTP; Thu, 30 Mar 2017 04:19:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.28.55.9 with HTTP; Thu, 30 Mar 2017 04:19:19 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <42619430.6XQoorDgjR@strawberry>
References: <CY4PR18MB135053B235C734A3D8D9C13BCD350@CY4PR18MB1350.namprd18.prod.outlook.com>
<42619430.6XQoorDgjR@strawberry>
From: David Vorick <david.vorick@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2017 07:19:19 -0400
Message-ID: <CAFVRnypMev625j6htvpC+xJo3y5VgWednOBaRhqtuiMKKNPFsw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>,
Tom Zander <tomz@freedommail.ch>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11441e4a4d1fbe054bf0dd53
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, HTML_MESSAGE,
RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,
RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM autolearn=no version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Hard fork proposal from last week's meeting
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol 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 Mar 2017 11:19:22 -0000
--001a11441e4a4d1fbe054bf0dd53
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> What we want is a true fee-market where the miner can decide to make a
block
> smaller to get people to pay more fees, because if we were to go to 16MB
> blocks in one go, the cost of the miner would go up, but his reward based
on
> fees will go down!
> A block so big that 100% of the transactions will always be mined in the
> next block will just cause a large section of people to no longer feel th=
e
> need to pay fees.
> As such I don=E2=80=99t fear the situation where the block size limit goe=
s up a
lot
> in one go, because it is not in anyone=E2=80=99s interest to make the act=
ual block
> size follow.
There have been attacks demonstrated where a malicious miner with
sufficient hashrate can leverage large blocks to exacerbate selfish mining.
Adversarial behaviors from miners need to be considered, it's not safe to
simply assume that a miner won't have reasons to attack the network. We
already know that large empty blocks (rather, blocks with fake
transactions) can be leveraged in ways that both damages the network and
increases miner profits.
In general, fear of other currencies passing Bitcoin is unsubstantiated.
Bitcoin has by far the strongest development team, and also is by far the
most decentralized. To the best of my knowledge, Bitcoin is the only
cryptocurrency out there that is both not-dead and also lacks a strong
central leadership.
A coin like ethereum may even be able to pass Bitcoin in market cap. But
that's okay. Ethereum has very different properties and it's not something
I would trust as a tool to provide me with political sovereignty. Ethereum
passing Bitcoin in market cap does not mean that it has proved superior to
Bitcoin. It could just mean that enterprises are really excited about
permissioned blockchains. That's not interesting to me at any market cap.
Bitcoin's core value add is and should continue to be decentralization and
trustlessness. Nobody is remotely close to competing with Bitcoin on those
fronts, and in my mind that's far more important than any of the other
mania anyway.
--001a11441e4a4d1fbe054bf0dd53
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"auto"><div class=3D"gmail_extra" dir=3D"auto">>=C2=A0<span s=
tyle=3D"font-family:sans-serif;font-size:13.696px">What we want is a true f=
ee-market where the miner can decide to make a block</span></div><span styl=
e=3D"font-family:sans-serif;font-size:13.696px">> smaller to get people =
to pay more fees, because if we were to go to 16MB</span><br style=3D"font-=
family:sans-serif;font-size:13.696px"><span style=3D"font-family:sans-serif=
;font-size:13.696px">> blocks in one go, the cost of the miner would go =
up, but his reward based on</span><br style=3D"font-family:sans-serif;font-=
size:13.696px"><span style=3D"font-family:sans-serif;font-size:13.696px">&g=
t; fees will go down!</span><br style=3D"font-family:sans-serif;font-size:1=
3.696px"><span style=3D"font-family:sans-serif;font-size:13.696px">> A b=
lock so big that 100% of the transactions will always be mined in the</span=
><br style=3D"font-family:sans-serif;font-size:13.696px"><span style=3D"fon=
t-family:sans-serif;font-size:13.696px">> next block will just cause a l=
arge section of people to no longer feel the</span><br style=3D"font-family=
:sans-serif;font-size:13.696px"><span style=3D"font-family:sans-serif;font-=
size:13.696px">> need to pay fees.</span><br style=3D"font-family:sans-s=
erif;font-size:13.696px"><br style=3D"font-family:sans-serif;font-size:13.6=
96px"><span style=3D"font-family:sans-serif;font-size:13.696px">> As suc=
h I don=E2=80=99t fear the situation where the block size limit goes up a l=
ot</span><br style=3D"font-family:sans-serif;font-size:13.696px"><span styl=
e=3D"font-family:sans-serif;font-size:13.696px">> in one go, because it =
is not in anyone=E2=80=99s interest to make the actual block</span><br styl=
e=3D"font-family:sans-serif;font-size:13.696px"><span style=3D"font-family:=
sans-serif;font-size:13.696px">> size follow.</span><div dir=3D"auto"><s=
pan style=3D"font-family:sans-serif;font-size:13.696px"><br></span></div><d=
iv dir=3D"auto"><span style=3D"font-family:sans-serif;font-size:13.696px">T=
here have been attacks demonstrated where a malicious miner with sufficient=
hashrate can leverage large blocks to exacerbate selfish mining. Adversari=
al behaviors from miners need to be considered, it's not safe to simply=
assume that a miner won't have reasons to attack the network. We alrea=
dy know that large empty blocks (rather, blocks with fake transactions) can=
be leveraged in ways that both damages the network and increases miner pro=
fits.</span></div><div dir=3D"auto"><span style=3D"font-family:sans-serif;f=
ont-size:13.696px"><br></span></div><div dir=3D"auto"><span style=3D"font-f=
amily:sans-serif;font-size:13.696px">In general, fear of other currencies p=
assing Bitcoin is unsubstantiated. Bitcoin has by far the strongest develop=
ment team, and also is by far the most decentralized. To the best of my kno=
wledge, Bitcoin is the only cryptocurrency out there that is both not-dead =
and also lacks a strong central leadership.</span></div><div dir=3D"auto"><=
span style=3D"font-family:sans-serif;font-size:13.696px"><br></span></div><=
div dir=3D"auto"><span style=3D"font-family:sans-serif;font-size:13.696px">=
A coin like ethereum may even be able to pass Bitcoin in market cap. But th=
at's okay. Ethereum has very different properties and it's not some=
thing I would trust as a tool to provide me with political sovereignty. Eth=
ereum passing Bitcoin in market cap does not mean that it has proved superi=
or to Bitcoin. It could just mean that enterprises are really excited about=
permissioned blockchains. That's not interesting to me at any market c=
ap.</span></div><div dir=3D"auto"><span style=3D"font-family:sans-serif;fon=
t-size:13.696px"><br></span></div><div dir=3D"auto"><font face=3D"sans-seri=
f"><span style=3D"font-size:13.696px">Bitcoin's core value add is and s=
hould continue to be decentralization and trustlessness. Nobody is remotely=
close to competing with Bitcoin on those fronts, and in my mind that's=
far more important than any of the other mania anyway.</span></font></div>=
</div>
--001a11441e4a4d1fbe054bf0dd53--
|
