From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3287D7E for ; Tue, 11 Aug 2015 08:38:12 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from manxnetsf05.manx.net (outbound.manx.net [213.137.31.12]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 977551E2 for ; Tue, 11 Aug 2015 08:38:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from 195.10.99.101 (EHLO _127.0.0.1_) ([195.10.99.101]) by manxnetsf05.manx.net (MOS 4.4.5a-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id EGE61467; Tue, 11 Aug 2015 09:38:07 +0100 (BST) Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: BlackBerry Email (10.3.1.2576) Message-ID: <20150811083806.4689995.85497.4220@thomaszander.se> Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2015 09:38:06 +0100 From: Thomas Zander In-Reply-To: References: <2547793.e4fEoOQyIR@coldstorage> <1623892.Xps1bl6nlD@coldstorage> To: Mark Friedenbach X-Mirapoint-Received-SPF: 195.10.99.101 _127.0.0.1_ thomas@thomaszander.se 5 none X-Junkmail-Status: score=10/50, host=manxnetsf05.manx.net X-Junkmail-Signature-Raw: score=unknown, refid=str=0001.0A0B0206.55C9B46F.017F, ss=1, re=0.000, recu=0.000, reip=0.000, cl=1, cld=1, fgs=0, ip=0.0.0.0, so=2014-07-29 09:23:55, dmn=2013-03-21 17:37:32, mode=multiengine X-Junkmail-IWF: false X-Mirapoint-Virus-RAPID-Raw: score=unknown(0), refid=str=0001.0A0B0206.55C9B46F.017F, ss=1, re=0.000, recu=0.000, reip=0.000, cl=1, cld=1, fgs=0, ip=0.0.0.0, so=2014-07-29 09:23:55, dmn=2013-03-21 17:37:32 X-Mirapoint-Loop-Id: 1d0b4c36cb3b39a7afaf456daeb455b9 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,HTML_MESSAGE, MIME_HTML_ONLY,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=no version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Cc: Bitcoin Dev 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2015 08:38:12 -0000 =
>It follows then, that if= we make a decision now which destroys that property, which makes it possib= le to censor bitcoin, to deny service, or to pressure miners into changing = rules contrary to user interests, then Bitcoin is no longer interesting.

You asked to be= convinced of the need for bigger blocks. I gave that.
What makes you think bitcoin will break when more people use it?
=

= = =
Sent on the go,&= nbsp;excuse the brevity. 
= = <= table width=3D"100%" style=3D"background-color:white;border-spacing:0px;"> =
From: Mark Friedenb= ach
Sent: Tuesday, 11 August 2015 08:10
To: <= /b>Thomas Zander
Cc: Bitcoin Dev
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Fees and the block-finding process
=

On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 11:31 P= M, Thomas Zander via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.li= nuxfoundation.org> wrote:
On Mo= nday 10. August 2015= 23.03.39 Mark Friedenbach wrote:
> This is where things diverge. It's fine to pick a new limit or growth<= br> > trajectory. But defend it with data and reasoned analysis.

We currently serve about 0,007% of the world population sending mayb= e one
transaction a month.
This can only go up.

There are about 20 currencies in the world that are unstable and showing ea= rly
signs of hyperinflation. If even small percentage of these people cash-out = and
get Bitcoins for their savings you'd have the amount of people using Bitcoi= n
as savings go from maybe half a million to 10 million in the space of a cou= ple
of months. Why so fast? Because all the world currencies are linked.
Practically all currencies follow the USD, and while that one may stay robu= st
and standing, the linkage has been shown in the past to cause chain-effects= .

It is impossible to predict how much uptake Bitcoin will take, but we have<= br> seen big rises in price as Cyprus had a bailin and then when Greece first showed bad signs again.
Lets do our due diligence and agree that in the current world economy there=
are sure signs that people are considering Bitcoin on a big scale.

Bigger amount of people holding Bitcoin savings won't make the transaction<= br> rate go up very much, but if you have feet on the ground you already see th= at
people go back to barter in countries like Poland, Ireland, Greece etc.
And Bitcoin will be an alternative to good to ignore.  Then transactio= n rates
will go up. Dramatically.

If you are asking for numbers, that is a bit tricky. Again; we are at
0,007%... Thats like a f-ing rounding error in the world economy. You can't=
reason from that. Its like using a float to do calculations that you should=
have done in a double and getting weird output.

Bottom line is that a maximum size of 8Mb blocks is not that odd. Because a= 20
times increase is very common in a "company" that is about 6 years old.
For instance Android was about that age when it started to get shipped by n= on-
Google companies. There the increase was substantially bigger and the compa= ny
backing it was definitely able to change direction faster than the Bitcoin<= br> oiltanker can change direction.

...

Another metric to remember; if you follow hackernews (well, the incubator m= ore
than the linked articles) you'd be exposed to the thinking of these startup= s.
Their only criteria is growth. and this is rather substantial growth. Like<= br> 150% per month.  Naturally, most of these build on top of html or othe= r
existing technologies.  But the point is that exponential growth is ex= pected
in any startup.  They typically have a much much more agressive timeli= ne,
though. Every month instead of every year.
Having exponential growth in the blockchain is really not odd and even if w= e
have LN or sidechains or the next changetip, this space will be used. And w= e
will still have scarcity.
 
I'm sorry, = I really don't want to sound like a jerk, but not a single word of that mat= tered. Yes we all want Bitcoin to scale such that every person in the world= can use it without difficulty. However if that were all that we cared abou= t then I would be remiss if I did not point out that there are plenty of be= tter, faster, and cheaper solutions to finding global consensus over a paym= ent ledger than Bitcoin. Architectures which are algorithmically superior i= n their scaling properties. Indeed they are already implemented and you can= use them today:

https://www.st= ellar.org/
http://opentrans= actions.org/

So why do I work on Bitcoin, and why do = I care about the outcome of this debate? Because Bitcoin offers one thing, = and one thing only which alternative architectures fundamentally lack: poli= cy neutrality. It can't be censored, it can't be shut down, and the rules c= annot change from underneath you. *That* is what Bitcoin offers that can't = be replicated at higher scale with a SQL database and an audit log.

=
It follows then, that if we make a decision now which destroys t= hat property, which makes it possible to censor bitcoin, to deny service, o= r to pressure miners into changing rules contrary to user interests, then B= itcoin is no longer interesting. We might as well get rid of mining at that= point and make Bitcoin look like Stellar or Open-Transactions because at l= east then we'd scale even better and not be pumping millions of tons of CO2= into the atmosphere from running all those ASICs.

=
On the other side, 3Tb harddrives are sold, which take 8Mb blocks without problems.

Straw man, storage is not an issue.
 
You can buy broadband in= every relevant country that easily supports the
bandwidth we need. (remember we won't jump to 8Mb in a day, it will likely<= br> take at least 6 months).

Neither one of= those assertions is clear. Keep in mind the goal is to have Bitcoin surviv= e active censorship. Presumably that means being able to run a node even in= the face of a hostile ISP or government. Furthermore, it means being locat= ion independent and being able to move around. In many places the higher th= e bandwidth requirements the fewer the number of ISPs that are available to= service you, and the more visible you are.

It may also b= e necessary to be able to run over Tor. And not just today's Tor which is d= eveloped, serviced, and supported by the US government, but a Tor or I2P th= at future governments have turned hostile towards and actively censor or re= press. Or existing authoritative governments, for that matter. How much ban= dwidth would be available through those connections?

It m= ay hopefully never be necessary to operate under such constraints, except b= y freedom seeking individuals within existing totalitarian regimes. However= the credible threat of doing so may be what keeps Bitcoin from being repre= ssed in the first place. Lose the capability to go underground, and it will= be pressured into regulation, eventually.

To the second = point, it has been previously pointed out that large miners stand to gain f= rom larger blocks, for the same basic underlying reasons as selfish mining.= The incentive is to increase blocks, and miners are able to do so at will = and without cost. I would not be so certain that we wouldn't see large bloc= ks sooner than that.
 
We should get the inverted bloom filters stuff (or competing products) work= ing
at least on a one-to-one basis so we can solve the propagation time problem= .
There frankly is a huge amount of optimization that can be done in tha= t area,
we don't even use locality (pingtime) to optimize distribution.
>From my experience you can expect a 2-magnitude speedup in that same 6 mont= h
period by focusing some research there.

This is basically already deployed thanks = to Matt's relay network. Further improvements are not going to have dramati= c effects.
 
Remember 8Gb/b= lock still doesn't support VISA/Mastercard.

=
No, it doesn't. And 8GB/block is ludicrously large -- it would absolut= ely, without any doubt destroy the very nature of Bitcoin, turning it into = a fundamentally uninteresting reincarnation of the existing financial syste= m. And still be unable to compete with VISA/Mastercard.

S= o why then the pressure to go down a route that WILL lead to failure by you= r own metrics?

I humbly suggest that maybe we should play= the strengths of Bitcoin instead -- it's trustlessness via policy neutrali= ty.

Either that, or go work on Stellar. Because that's wh= ere it's headed otherwise.