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 B758C4D3 for ; Tue, 4 Aug 2015 18:28:39 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from peacecow.phauna.org (phauna.org [208.82.98.102]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C80C713A for ; Tue, 4 Aug 2015 18:28:38 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=phauna.org; s=apricot; h=Message-ID:CC:To:Date:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:MIME-Version:References:In-Reply-To; bh=44NztW2UG4Jc6/EOr42vhps8iy+O2li1nwajM3YmY2Y=; b=E84nrnq9rQJuakmVqqTB5mSuoGQhCwc1oDBmtJ2how1e9Vsj9WpsKzklk/VK1YM5bBjEzVXzqs+otgr4dbhRa5kUgksp3WyuvpYwnIXjv3H2xMCOG1oXtrpnn15jbgEB0wQ1v4RmoN/pEbrM5EhiFb4XlBjgXzbrJi+sI6CMQVA=; Received: from [172.56.36.189] (helo=[33.32.24.233]) by peacecow.phauna.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1ZMgx1-00069U-HH; Tue, 04 Aug 2015 18:28:37 +0000 User-Agent: K-9 Mail for Android In-Reply-To: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----TQNWFJVE964X9XAN01O7GM9P9CYDFL" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Owen Date: Tue, 04 Aug 2015 14:28:27 -0400 To: Anthony Towns , Anthony Towns via bitcoin-dev , Gavin Andresen Message-ID: <5A323AB6-914C-4FF5-9FC2-AB8E02C69F93@phauna.org> X-Spam_score: -2.9 X-Spam_score_int: -28 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: Spam detection software, running on the system "peacecow.phauna.org", has identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: Given there is no money at stake in these prediction games, it is no surprise that the results are implausible. On August 4, 2015 10:22:19 AM EDT, Anthony Towns via bitcoin-dev wrote: >On 4 August 2015 at 01:22, Gavin Andresen via bitcoin-dev < >bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > >> And the preliminary results of using a prediction market to try to >wrestle >> with the tough tradeoffs looks roughly correct to me, too: >> https://blocksizedebate.com/ >> > >​The scicast prediction market is shutdown atm (since early July?) so >those >numbers aren't live. But... > >Network hash rate >3,255.17 PH/s (same block size) >5,032.64 PH/s (block size increase) > >4,969.68 PH/s (no replace-by-fee) >3,132.09 PH/s (replace-by-fee) > >Those numbers seem completely implausible: that's ~2.9-3.6 doublings of >the >current hashrate (< 400PH/s) in 17 months, when it's taken 12 months >for >the last doubling, and there's a block reward reduction due in that >period >too. (That might've been a reasonable prediction sometime in the past >year, >when doublings were slowing from once every ~45 days to once a year; it >just doesn't seem a supportable prediction now) > >That the PH/s rate is higher with bigger blocks is surprising, but >given >that site also predicts USD/BTC will be $280 with no change but $555 >with >bigger blocks, so I assume that difference is mostly due to price. >Also, >12.5btc at $555 each is about 23 btc at $300 each, so if that price >increase is realistic, it would compensate for almost all of the block >reward reduction. > >Daily transaction volume >168,438.22 tx/day (same block size) >193,773.08 tx/day (block size increase) > >192,603.80 tx/day (no replace-by-fee) >168,406.73 tx/day (replace-by-fee) > >That's only a 15% increase in transaction volume due to the block size >increase; I would have expected more? 168k-194k tx/day is also only a >30%-50% increase in transaction volume from 130k tx/day currently. If >that's really the case, then a 1.5MB-2MB max block size would probably >be >enough for the next two years... > >(Predicting that the node count will drop from [...] Content analysis details: (-2.9 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -1.0 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HTML_MESSAGE,RP_MATCHES_RCVD 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 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Eli Dourado on "governance" 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, 04 Aug 2015 18:28:39 -0000 ------TQNWFJVE964X9XAN01O7GM9P9CYDFL Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Given there is no money at stake in these prediction games, it is no surpri= se that the results are implausible=2E On August 4, 2015 10:22:19 AM EDT, Anthony Towns via bitcoin-dev wrote: >On 4 August 2015 at 01:22, Gavin Andresen via bitcoin-dev < >bitcoin-dev@lists=2Elinuxfoundation=2Eorg> wrote: > >> And the preliminary results of using a prediction market to try to >wrestle >> with the tough tradeoffs looks roughly correct to me, too: >> https://blocksizedebate=2Ecom/ >> > >=E2=80=8BThe scicast prediction market is shutdown atm (since early July?= ) so >those >numbers aren't live=2E But=2E=2E=2E > >Network hash rate >3,255=2E17 PH/s (same block size) >5,032=2E64 PH/s (block size increase) > >4,969=2E68 PH/s (no replace-by-fee) >3,132=2E09 PH/s (replace-by-fee) > >Those numbers seem completely implausible: that's ~2=2E9-3=2E6 doublings = of >the >current hashrate (< 400PH/s) in 17 months, when it's taken 12 months >for >the last doubling, and there's a block reward reduction due in that >period >too=2E (That might've been a reasonable prediction sometime in the past >year, >when doublings were slowing from once every ~45 days to once a year; it >just doesn't seem a supportable prediction now) > >That the PH/s rate is higher with bigger blocks is surprising, but >given >that site also predicts USD/BTC will be $280 with no change but $555 >with >bigger blocks, so I assume that difference is mostly due to price=2E >Also, >12=2E5btc at $555 each is about 23 btc at $300 each, so if that price >increase is realistic, it would compensate for almost all of the block >reward reduction=2E > >Daily transaction volume >168,438=2E22 tx/day (same block size) >193,773=2E08 tx/day (block size increase) > >192,603=2E80 tx/day (no replace-by-fee) >168,406=2E73 tx/day (replace-by-fee) > >That's only a 15% increase in transaction volume due to the block size >increase; I would have expected more? 168k-194k tx/day is also only a >30%-50% increase in transaction volume from 130k tx/day currently=2E If >that's really the case, then a 1=2E5MB-2MB max block size would probably >be >enough for the next two years=2E=2E=2E > >(Predicting that the node count will drop from ~5000 to ~1200 due to >increasing block sizes seems quite an indictment as far as >centralisation >risks go; but given I'm not that convinced by the other predictions, >I'm >not sure I want to give that much weight to that one either) > >Cheers, >aj > >--=20 >Anthony Towns > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >_______________________________________________ >bitcoin-dev mailing list >bitcoin-dev@lists=2Elinuxfoundation=2Eorg >https://lists=2Elinuxfoundation=2Eorg/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev ------TQNWFJVE964X9XAN01O7GM9P9CYDFL Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Given there is no money at stake in these predicti= on games, it is no surprise that the results are implausible=2E

On August 4, 2015 10:22:19 AM EDT, Anthony Towns via= bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists=2Elinuxfoundation=2Eorg> wrote:
On 4 August 2015 at 01:22,= Gavin Andresen via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists=2Elinuxfoundation=2Eorg&= gt; wrote:
=
And the preliminary results of usin= g a prediction market to try to wrestle with the tough tradeoffs looks roug= hly correct to me, too:

=E2=80=8BThe scicast prediction market is shutdo= wn atm (since early July?) so those numbers aren't live=2E But=2E=2E=2E=

Netw= ork hash rate
3,255=2E17 PH/s =C2=A0(same block size)=
5,032=2E64 PH/s =C2=A0(block size increase)

4,969=2E68 PH/s =C2=A0(no replace-by-fee= )
<= span class=3D"Apple-tab-span" style=3D"white-space:pre"> 3,132=2E09 = PH/s =C2=A0(replace-by-fee)

Those numbers seem completely implausible: that's ~2= =2E9-3=2E6 doublings of the current hashrate (< 400PH/s) in 17 months, w= hen it's taken 12 months for the last doubling, and there's a block= reward reduction due in that period too=2E (That might've been a reaso= nable prediction sometime in the past year, when doublings were slowing fro= m once every ~45 days to once a year; it just doesn't seem a supportabl= e prediction now)

That the PH/s rate is higher with bigger blocks is surprising, but g= iven that site also predicts USD/BTC will be $280 with no change but $555 w= ith bigger blocks, so I assume that difference is mostly due to price=2E Al= so, 12=2E5btc at $555 each is about 23 btc at $300 each, so if that price i= ncrease is realistic, it would compensate for almost all of the block rewar= d reduction=2E

Daily transact= ion volume
168,438= =2E22 tx/day =C2=A0(same block size)
193,773=2E08 tx/day =C2=A0(block size increase)

192,603=2E80 tx/day =C2=A0(no replace-by-fee)
168,406=2E7= 3 tx/day =C2=A0(replace-by-fee)

That's only a 15% increase in transaction volume due to = the block size increase; I would have expected more? 168k-194k tx/day is al= so only a 30%-50% increase in transaction volume from 130k tx/day currently= =2E If that's really the case, then a 1=2E5MB-2MB max block size would = probably be enough for the next two years=2E=2E=2E

(Predicting that the node count will drop from ~5000 to ~1200 du= e to increasing block sizes seems quite an indictment as far as centralisat= ion risks go; but given I'm not that convinced by the other predictions= , I'm not sure I want to give that much weight to that one either)

Cheers,
=
aj
=

--
Anthony Town= s <aj@erisian= =2Ecom=2Eau>


bitcoin-dev mailing listbitcoin-dev@lists=2Elinuxfoundation=2Eorg
https://lists=2Elinu=
xfoundation=2Eorg/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
=
------TQNWFJVE964X9XAN01O7GM9P9CYDFL--