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 AA03E72A for ; Fri, 31 Mar 2017 02:26:35 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-qk0-f175.google.com (mail-qk0-f175.google.com [209.85.220.175]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 034F9169 for ; Fri, 31 Mar 2017 02:26:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-qk0-f175.google.com with SMTP id d201so26496801qkc.0 for ; Thu, 30 Mar 2017 19:26:34 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=QhobKvrQnKopyyfz1G8HL5YxIvCFzaUx2LShO5K2Pz8=; b=BunYOOPFpx09xRkLUDWg30ys3beizFYDl75h60uBgQnHZIJFEDHpM/fMpl6cxQXNrf 2TzlS/kBjWRFv5h3MAKuJIuTY6kGdcpRtgA/IZGUHvTjRXUYlDWm8IXRG6bEDi1IFdhM O0dyRU2Xmuyjd+oPPO1huUDdjWd6MeDahBhoWQ2DNnOqWQHp2y2jMvpS1NcJ/iNGERZI bHKaU2a5P38drgHoN8cTjs8P5uUWlYPhq0ujbxi6DpWk8Vk5x8nvYO7dgYbN0Om8JYy1 kIs27S0WorL1lwOvnsts4zo2a9TlM+RBFcHf1rU23fFNQOzsyQupTlvgYL24L4DTQhDo i+yw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=QhobKvrQnKopyyfz1G8HL5YxIvCFzaUx2LShO5K2Pz8=; b=AGksop3OXva7sDDum3Bz2vTlD5Z4sdQmoGRVyYr1ebtBrxbl8BXwLU4OxsWlrNRmlE R/GZ9I7/uA/BWZd6hTQumCg2o2B8xGIvkCn7Ag22MQMO3o+uTqrMcqHbqnf8R22u1s+P z1OEqVIcXuMZe6S4mUR0H0xVCPmyTI7WAjO3bRhUp7q97wiFNQBku42c9Kh+AdWIEnRo awy1JfO8Vw1maTEaJLXztcsoFmmJCTn4QcfkU+hgVLXb5Bd5VEu/LCwtinjYRjl2e6uw CdQkS9bMPFeTmoeaF+KYl6lbAPMxsUqc5sBesfXYgaeoKdofxDp145pbyFjcQ1MDLGre xgiw== X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H23FJz4gIyPauJOeuV+1cUjW5pqbIcTyNlccdtain+JO9kT1KuCtyKLb+orrDB5fA== X-Received: by 10.55.1.202 with SMTP id u71mr567488qkg.163.1490927194256; Thu, 30 Mar 2017 19:26:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mbp.fios-router.home (pool-108-35-162-176.nwrknj.fios.verizon.net. [108.35.162.176]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id n21sm2677098qkh.16.2017.03.30.19.26.33 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 30 Mar 2017 19:26:33 -0700 (PDT) From: Vladimir Zaytsev Message-Id: <54F29F31-6E1B-478A-85B4-7BAE3703714A@gmail.com> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_0AA53C73-85EC-445A-B161-82D0059F10C1" Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.2 \(3259\)) Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2017 22:26:31 -0400 In-Reply-To: To: Jared Lee Richardson References: <61B9AE0D-5A58-4A72-8834-8ED164ED627F@gmail.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3259) 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 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 31 Mar 2017 02:31:10 +0000 Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] High fees / centralization X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2017 02:26:35 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_0AA53C73-85EC-445A-B161-82D0059F10C1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Can there be a minimum amount to put up for mining ? I hope i=E2=80=99m = not in violation with any ideology yet :) > On Mar 30, 2017, at 10:01 PM, Jared Lee Richardson = wrote: >=20 > That would be blockchain sharding. >=20 > Would be amazing if someone could figure out how to do it trustlessly. = So far I'm not convinced it is possible to resolve the conflicts = between the shards and commit transactions between shards. >=20 > On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 6:39 PM, Vladimir Zaytsev = > wrote: > There must be a way to organize =E2=80=9Cbranches=E2=80=9D of smaller = activity to join main tree after they grow. Outsider a bit, I see going = circles here, but not everything must be accepted in the chain. Good = idea as it is, it=E2=80=99s just too early to record every sight=E2=80=A6.= >=20 >=20 >=20 >> On Mar 30, 2017, at 5:52 PM, Jared Lee Richardson via bitcoin-dev = > wrote: >>=20 >> > Further, we are very far from the point (in my appraisal) where = fees are high enough to block home users from using the network. >>=20 >> This depends entirely on the usecase entirely. Most likely even = without a blocksize increase, home purchases will be large enough to fit = on the blocksize in the forseeable future. Microtransactions(<$0.25) on = the other hand aren't viable no matter what we try to do - There's just = too much data. >>=20 >> Most likely, transaction fees above $1 per tx will become unappealing = for many consumers, and above $10 is likely to be niche-level. It is = hard to say with any certainty, but average credit card fees give us = some indications to work with - $1.2 on a $30 transaction, though paid = by the business and not the consumer. >>=20 >> Without blocksize increases, fees higher than $1/tx are basically = inevitable, most likely before 2020. Running a node only costs = $10/month if that. If we were going to favor node operational costs = that highly in the weighting, we'd better have a pretty solid = justification with mathematical models or examples. >>=20 >> > We should not throw away the core innovation of monetary = sovereignty in pursuit of supporting 0.1% of the world's daily = transactions. >>=20 >> If we can easily have both, why not have both? >>=20 >> An altcoin with both will take Bitcoin's monetary sovereignty crown = by default. No crown, no usecases, no Bitcoin. >>=20 >>=20 >=20 >=20 --Apple-Mail=_0AA53C73-85EC-445A-B161-82D0059F10C1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Can there be a minimum amount to put up for mining ? I hope = i=E2=80=99m not in violation with any ideology yet :)

On = Mar 30, 2017, at 10:01 PM, Jared Lee Richardson <jaredr26@gmail.com> = wrote:

That would be blockchain sharding.

Would be amazing if someone could figure out = how to do it trustlessly.  So far I'm not convinced it is possible = to resolve the conflicts between the shards and commit transactions = between shards.

On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 6:39 PM, Vladimir Zaytsev = <vladimir.zaytsev@gmail.com> wrote:
There must be = a way to organize =E2=80=9Cbranches=E2=80=9D of smaller activity to join = main tree after they grow. Outsider a bit, I see going circles here, but = not everything must be accepted in the chain. Good idea as it is, it=E2=80= =99s just too early to record every sight=E2=80=A6.



On Mar 30, 2017, at 5:52 PM, Jared Lee = Richardson via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> = wrote:

> Further, we are very far from the = point (in my appraisal) where fees are high enough to block home users = from using the network.

This = depends entirely on the usecase entirely.  Most likely even without = a blocksize increase, home purchases will be large enough to fit on the = blocksize in the forseeable future.  Microtransactions(<$0.25) = on the other hand aren't viable no matter what we try to do - There's = just too much data.

Most likely, transaction = fees above $1 per tx will become unappealing for many consumers, and = above $10 is likely to be niche-level.  It is hard to say with any = certainty, but average credit card fees give us some indications to work = with - $1.2 on a $30 transaction, though paid by the business and not = the consumer.

Without blocksize increases, = fees higher than $1/tx are basically inevitable, most likely before = 2020.  Running a node only costs $10/month if that.  If we = were going to favor node operational costs that highly in the weighting, = we'd better have a pretty solid justification with mathematical models = or examples.

> We = should not throw away the core innovation of monetary sovereignty in = pursuit of supporting 0.1% of the world's daily transactions.

If we can easily have both, why not = have both?

An altcoin with both will take = Bitcoin's monetary sovereignty crown by default.  No crown, no = usecases, no Bitcoin.





= --Apple-Mail=_0AA53C73-85EC-445A-B161-82D0059F10C1--