From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1WILZr-0000Jw-5b for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 17:13:55 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of petertodd.org designates 62.13.149.75 as permitted sender) client-ip=62.13.149.75; envelope-from=pete@petertodd.org; helo=outmail149075.authsmtp.net; Received: from outmail149075.authsmtp.net ([62.13.149.75]) by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) id 1WILZp-000055-F8 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 17:13:55 +0000 Received: from mail-c237.authsmtp.com (mail-c237.authsmtp.com [62.13.128.237]) by punt14.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id s1PHDlso008634; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 17:13:47 GMT Received: from savin (76-10-178-109.dsl.teksavvy.com [76.10.178.109]) (authenticated bits=128) by mail.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id s1PHDhSf034705 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 25 Feb 2014 17:13:45 GMT Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 12:13:34 -0500 From: Peter Todd To: Mike Hearn Message-ID: <20140225171334.GA30819@savin> References: <20140225044116.GA28050@savin> <20140225144922.GA25549@savin> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="VbJkn9YxBvnuCH5J" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Server-Quench: 2f7d8b7c-9e40-11e3-94fa-002590a135d3 X-AuthReport-Spam: If SPAM / abuse - report it at: http://www.authsmtp.com/abuse X-AuthRoute: OCd2Yg0TA1ZNQRgX IjsJECJaVQIpKltL GxAVKBZePFsRUQkR aQdMdAcUHlAWAgsB AmIbWlNeUV57XWU7 bAxPbAVDY01GQQRq WVdMSlVNFUsrAHx5 ckZ9BBlxcwJGfTBx YEJqXj5ZCkMufRR6 EVNdQGkGeGZhPWMC WUQOJh5UcAFPdx8U a1N6AHBDAzANdhES HhM4ODE3eDlSNilR RRkIIFQOdA4lEzN0 SwoFBV0A X-Authentic-SMTP: 61633532353630.1024:706 X-AuthFastPath: 0 (Was 255) X-AuthSMTP-Origin: 76.10.178.109/587 X-AuthVirus-Status: No virus detected - but ensure you scan with your own anti-virus system. X-Spam-Score: -1.5 (-) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for sender-domain -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record X-Headers-End: 1WILZp-000055-F8 Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Fee drop X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 17:13:55 -0000 --VbJkn9YxBvnuCH5J Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 10:25:58PM +0530, Mike Hearn wrote: Well, I've done my responsible disclosure, and I've got better things to do than argue with wishful thinking. > There are two possibilities. >=20 > One is that the value of transactions with the new lower fee is outweighed > by increased orphan costs and miners refuse to include them en-masse. > Wallet authors lose the staring match and go back to setting higher fees > until such a time as block propagation is optimised and the orphan costs = go > down. Nodes that are encountering memory pressure can increase their min > relay fee locally until their usage fits inside their resources. It's > annoying to do this by hand but by no means infeasible. >=20 > The other is that the total value of transactions even with the lower fee > is not outweighed by orphan costs. The value of a transaction is higher > than its simple monetary value - the fact that Bitcoin is useful, growing > and considered cheap also has a value which is impossible to calculate, b= ut > we know it's there (because Bitcoin does not exist in a vacuum and has > competitors). In this case miners stop including lots of useful > transactions that represent desired economic activity and are put under > pressure by the community to change their policies. If all miners do this > and making small blocks is considered errant behaviour, then we're back to > the same situation we're in today. >=20 > The possibility you're worried about - that someone does a DoS attack by > flooding the network with small transactions - is only an issue in the > first situation, and it is by no means the easiest or cheapest way to DoS > Bitcoin. We all want to see more DoS resistance but basically any change = to > Bitcoin can be objected to on anti-DoS grounds at the moment, and this wi= ll > remain the case until someone steps up to spend significant time on > resource scheduling and code audits. --=20 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org 0000000000000000445db8e568846d542c86ab395137b32b2a05577afcc7c6a3 --VbJkn9YxBvnuCH5J Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.14 (GNU/Linux) iQGrBAEBCACVBQJTDM89XhSAAAAAABUAQGJsb2NraGFzaEBiaXRjb2luLm9yZzAw MDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwMDA0NDVkYjhlNTY4ODQ2ZDU0MmM4NmFiMzk1MTM3YjMyYjJh MDU1NzdhZmNjN2M2YTMvFIAAAAAAFQARcGthLWFkZHJlc3NAZ251cGcub3JncGV0 ZUBwZXRlcnRvZC5vcmcACgkQJIFAPaXwkfvW5QgAk2kTLdUgkzYNL7hdxUKd2lbO HaIrS+/2YbHA/lL2McEXWQXsGsRq2TijLXWr091J5aFSwuil4e3lUEGHsTiHuRqC Ev3z/CncSIEoCpQPOdB+E/z8Dz9VTZgADmr1f4Z36FjmQ8dkyd37L8zTfwY9yqti YysT6B9fXKElOpGcorHCSDEL3Ze0wWBSpkKZ4A4ToWCDQws/msjWLySNbAlBf2em cmFIObtBNIOyBN11v4kVWXQVSpUDcqq10MURfZDuzlMF8+9dlimI0+8dwP4gUSNn 8rBWyzQN7kkG5yTYSfOAwsSg0C6o73UAJbJgq8m9HBjEMK7ZhYqHDpWKcL2mJg== =ztKd -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --VbJkn9YxBvnuCH5J--