From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1Z5tut-0005Yz-6l for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 19 Jun 2015 10:52:59 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.220.51 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.220.51; envelope-from=elombrozo@gmail.com; helo=mail-pa0-f51.google.com; Received: from mail-pa0-f51.google.com ([209.85.220.51]) by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1Z5tur-0006Og-NQ for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 19 Jun 2015 10:52:59 +0000 Received: by pabvl15 with SMTP id vl15so36904480pab.1 for ; Fri, 19 Jun 2015 03:52:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.68.136.42 with SMTP id px10mr30936636pbb.19.1434711172029; Fri, 19 Jun 2015 03:52:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.102] (cpe-76-167-237-202.san.res.rr.com. [76.167.237.202]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id c3sm10873005pdk.39.2015.06.19.03.52.49 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 19 Jun 2015 03:52:50 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2098\)) Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_D06283BA-A681-4987-B394-7A713235585C"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512 X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.5b6 From: Eric Lombrozo In-Reply-To: Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2015 03:52:48 -0700 Message-Id: <5E49FE9F-CC70-4DFD-8055-68E9372923DF@gmail.com> References: <55828737.6000007@riseup.net> <55831CAB.2080303@jrn.me.uk> <1867667.WXWC1C9quc@crushinator> To: Mike Hearn X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2098) X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/) 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 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (elombrozo[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature X-Headers-End: 1Z5tur-0006Og-NQ Cc: Bitcoin Development , Gavin Andresen Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Concerns Regarding Threats by a Developer to Remove Commit Access from Other Developers 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: Fri, 19 Jun 2015 10:52:59 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_D06283BA-A681-4987-B394-7A713235585C Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_3A6D511D-5907-4232-AB9F-F7095E8F1636" --Apple-Mail=_3A6D511D-5907-4232-AB9F-F7095E8F1636 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > On Jun 19, 2015, at 2:37 AM, Mike Hearn wrote: >=20 > Or alternatively, fix the reasons why users would have negative = experiences with full blocks >=20 > It's impossible, Mark. By definition if Bitcoin does not have = sufficient capacity for everyone's transactions, some users who were = using it will be kicked out to make way for the others. Whether that = happens in some kind of stable organised way or (as with the current = code) a fairly chaotic way doesn't change the fundamental truth: some = users will find their bitcoin savings have become uneconomic to spend. >=20 > Here's a recent user complaint that provides a preview of coming = attractions: >=20 > = https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/39r3bi/breadwallet_asking_me_to_= pay_over_10_network_fee/ = >=20 > Hello, I'm just trying to send my small Sarutobi-tips stash (12,159 = bits) onto a paper wallet. When I try to send it, a window pops up = stating "insufficient funds for bitcoin network fee, reduce payment = amount by 1,389 bits?" This would be a fee of $0.32 to send my $2.82, = leaving me with $2.50. >=20 > These sorts of complaints will get more frequent and more extreme in = the coming months. I realise that nobody at Blockstream is in the = position of running an end user facing service, but many of us are .... = and we will be the ones that face the full anger of ordinary users as = Bitcoin hits the wall. Mike, With all due respect, many of us DO run end user facing services=E2=80=A6a= nd would rather see a fundamental problem *fixed* rather than merely = covered up temporarily=E2=80=A6hoping nobody notices. The user experience of Bitcoin is already horrendous=E2=80=A6unless you = use a centralized validator web wallet. Even SPV is fundamentally broken = (and I would have pegged you for being one of the people most directly = aware of this fact). If we=E2=80=99re going for centralized validation, = why even use a blockchain in the first place? We already have much = faster, more efficient technology that can do that kind of stuff at a = fraction of the cost. If you have well-established entities running = banking services, we have other mechanisms in place that can help keep = them honest=E2=80=A6other far more efficient protocols. We=E2=80=99re = basically defeating the very purpose of this invention. Then there are a bunch of other =E2=80=9Cinconveniences=E2=80=9D about = the way Bitcoin currently works. For instance, have you ever received a = bunch of small payments (i.e. a crowdsale) and then found yourself in = the position of having to suddenly move a big chunk of that on the = blockchain=E2=80=A6only to discover all the txouts you were spending = added up to hundreds of kB or more? Or have you ever had to send a small = payment but only had one large output in your wallet=E2=80=A6which meant = that the entirety of those funds were tied up until the first = transaction got signed and propagated? Yes, the protocol has MANY = serious issues=E2=80=A6of which the =E2=80=9Csend and forget=E2=80=9D = fee model as opposed to the =E2=80=9Csend and bid model=E2=80=9D is just = one. Bitcoin was designed from the beginning with the idea that sooner or = later fees would be a significant component of the network. The problem = was never really fully addressed and solved - I=E2=80=99m glad to see = that finally some good people in this space are starting to seriously = think about solutions. Mike, are you telling us you=E2=80=99d rather avoid user complaints at = all costs even if that means building something shitty for them that = doesn=E2=80=99t really serve its stated purpose? If those are your = standards then no thanks, I don=E2=80=99t want to be part of your fork. = And I don=E2=80=99t think I=E2=80=99m alone in this sentiment. - Eric Lombrozo > = --------------------------------------------------------------------------= ---- > _______________________________________________ > Bitcoin-development mailing list > Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development --Apple-Mail=_3A6D511D-5907-4232-AB9F-F7095E8F1636 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
On Jun 19, 2015, at 2:37 AM, Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net> = wrote:

Or = alternatively, fix the reasons why users would have negative experiences = with full blocks

It's impossible, Mark. By = definition if Bitcoin does not have sufficient capacity for = everyone's transactions, some users who were using it will be kicked out = to make way for the others. Whether that happens in some kind of stable = organised way or (as with the current code) a fairly chaotic way doesn't = change the fundamental truth: some users will find their = bitcoin savings have become uneconomic to spend.

Here's = a recent user complaint that provides a preview of coming = attractions:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/39r3bi/breadwallet_as= king_me_to_pay_over_10_network_fee/

Hello, I'm just trying to send my small = Sarutobi-tips stash (12,159 bits) onto a paper wallet. When I try to = send it, a window pops up stating "insufficient funds for bitcoin = network fee, reduce payment amount by 1,389 bits?" This would be a fee = of $0.32 to send my $2.82, leaving me with = $2.50.

These sorts of complaints will get more frequent and more = extreme in the coming months. I realise that nobody at Blockstream is =  in the position of running an end user facing service, but many of = us are .... and we will be the ones that face the full anger of ordinary = users as Bitcoin hits the = wall.

Mike,

With all = due respect, many of us DO run end user facing services=E2=80=A6and = would rather see a fundamental problem *fixed* rather than merely = covered up temporarily=E2=80=A6hoping nobody notices.

The user experience of Bitcoin is already = horrendous=E2=80=A6unless you use a centralized validator web wallet. = Even SPV is fundamentally broken (and I would have pegged you for being = one of the people most directly aware of this fact). If we=E2=80=99re = going for centralized validation, why even use a blockchain in the first = place? We already have much faster, more efficient technology that can = do that kind of stuff at a fraction of the cost. If you have = well-established entities running banking services, we have other = mechanisms in place that can help keep them honest=E2=80=A6other far = more efficient protocols. We=E2=80=99re basically defeating the very = purpose of this invention.

Then = there are a bunch of other =E2=80=9Cinconveniences=E2=80=9D about the = way Bitcoin currently works. For instance, have you ever received a = bunch of small payments (i.e. a crowdsale) and then found yourself in = the position of having to suddenly move a big chunk of that on the = blockchain=E2=80=A6only to discover all the txouts you were spending = added up to hundreds of kB or more? Or have you ever had to send a small = payment but only had one large output in your wallet=E2=80=A6which meant = that the entirety of those funds were tied up until the first = transaction got signed and propagated? Yes, the protocol has MANY = serious issues=E2=80=A6of which the =E2=80=9Csend and forget=E2=80=9D = fee model as opposed to the =E2=80=9Csend and bid model=E2=80=9D is just = one.

Bitcoin was designed from the = beginning with the idea that sooner or later fees would be a significant = component of the network. The problem was never really fully addressed = and solved - I=E2=80=99m glad to see that finally some good people in = this space are starting to seriously think about = solutions.

Mike, are you telling us = you=E2=80=99d rather avoid user complaints at all costs even if that = means building something shitty for them that doesn=E2=80=99t really = serve its stated purpose? If those are your standards then no thanks, I = don=E2=80=99t want to be part of your fork. And I don=E2=80=99t think = I=E2=80=99m alone in this sentiment.


- Eric = Lombrozo


= --------------------------------------------------------------------------= ----
_______________________________________________
Bitcoin-development mailing list
Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-developmen= t

= --Apple-Mail=_3A6D511D-5907-4232-AB9F-F7095E8F1636-- --Apple-Mail=_D06283BA-A681-4987-B394-7A713235585C Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJVg/SAAAoJEJNAI64YFENUq3gP/3QmFityuD5hT08nK8+5GZfz +MaZtLJi9A7yYDO0NYu9zxLPeq+f6Wr3Q2xxUuOmjXNGDQpTfoA++NeLe4Z9jhWp ecPPPPdU50kzqxUd+XXTP6kekmThUaswSBXN8+CB3C+2VpOsrjSngSZr4+tVsxOA xd0rMx/pN9wymW27yqMkZrb+u/VjByfC7WmFrFVh4lDgmptndivJYY4iGhd4A1y2 Y0GLgOIqinWmoQWOAxrTRseNDhQ2cLl4pDea+u696fOP5p8h5Zzyfga3n/adf4Vt BJEwVj6GxymN53HKWkjn8MaxAlqOZkTY/UVwlBuJWiNLdA2RHJqSzqvfF1DaL+6n QCFJnzJ2gS2TPkA5ZowONV1RS1iv8LTmq7ZS7PCz4ZB38XzWMLKu9wp7FOouMY3D RAe0Gw4h/0gjZzpBRd9uMt0TBVzoE1oB3W1beLrQoCS15OI9x8v5rLax3X/w039u tYIQ77uhwSY8zMcYV7Kws5oJaQ/T5wSRK28tjAtQ9NhWd0xpxi3EoKzFuWv2E16F 0C64y5n7S/9vYAhMErPlIUNb38YDMgyS7ViNzyXeD/1XLmuhlq6FehpUy98q+ueO 99RnRRsvaaIdqB0Y1zR0KsgsBhpmAtuyvNV0FykuuDS3WtNVhDqjKQmx6MH5RnaL kVkuaRmoyDc7UE9+7iGA =KtS4 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_D06283BA-A681-4987-B394-7A713235585C--