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 1EF3B259 for ; Fri, 21 Aug 2015 18:08:00 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-io0-f172.google.com (mail-io0-f172.google.com [209.85.223.172]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0B76512C for ; Fri, 21 Aug 2015 18:07:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: by iodb91 with SMTP id b91so89957139iod.1 for ; Fri, 21 Aug 2015 11:07:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:content-type:mime-version:subject:from :in-reply-to:date:cc:content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references :to; bh=2E9mCO8biJLDvXIHkJTld67UzFfuYD/5gwj3UiuZnIk=; b=XFudLE2L+wzUhqae6aRfo22EM3GJSI4g5iPtPH0uowodZRD904YEeiWXvlTYoNZOMh v/8j70mo4naoXkIjX9w2ZVOkjdMm2/qT8KDyMwxCVIuUOrX0fs5Lwc//2C9oyTYkO6iq gsLWqqZ7XJ0RbgZrLLQ4zirYgm86tYYjSrj+zU0irC7Th4Oa7L/P99XgQ0j6G8MKDqf9 RmR2wizlhnB92tsrwbqgJjOaER+jCgUohAMi0rY+0hD4kLnjBoGPJ2opNFiRYB+8q2Cz 4efChKfzObMBeMkTBx0map0EpzVhYd5luwdhjo6SHWdcSPys4UISb0MrdI6wvBxSbM6V I/Tw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQk7qwnC8x24RqDhrX+jlFjqmbbgCX0UPf0h0fHZH0FDw9HpZpAdzxNG4ACNfkkeBUNW3YS9 X-Received: by 10.107.36.140 with SMTP id k134mr8122282iok.5.1440180478450; Fri, 21 Aug 2015 11:07:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.86] (c-73-34-122-98.hsd1.co.comcast.net. [73.34.122.98]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id u83sm6506791iou.28.2015.08.21.11.07.57 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 21 Aug 2015 11:07:57 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2102\)) From: Will Madden In-Reply-To: <55D7606F.3050501@olivere.de> Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2015 12:07:56 -0600 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <3B2A58B3-6AF6-4F1C-A6FA-7AEC97F48AD0@petertodd.org> <55D7250D.5@olivere.de> <55D7606F.3050501@olivere.de> To: Oliver Egginger X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2102) X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW 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@lists.linuxfoundation.org Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Core Devs : can you share your thoughts about all BIPs on this website ? 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: Fri, 21 Aug 2015 18:08:00 -0000 I=E2=80=99m replying all just because my point was changed in your = response. > As a protocol Bitcoin could support millions of full nodes. What you > talking about is the number of shareholders. But these are poorly > determined by the block size. The number of shareholders is determined > by many parameter but manly by the decreasing-supply algorithm. Which > "was chosen because it approximates the rate at which commodities like > gold are mined". See: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Controlled_supply I am not talking about "shareholders=E2=80=9D who own bitcoin, or the = supply of bitcoin at all. I=E2=80=99m talking about active users of = bitcoin. I don=E2=80=99t care if they send 10,000 BTC, or .01 BTC, = usage is adoption. Putting a 1MB cap on block size caps transaction = volume, which by definition blocks adoption and use. =20 > While the decreasing-supply algorithm of Bitcoin has many advantage = it's > very hard to believe that the block chain will ever reach mass = adoption. > Even after 6 years, hardly anyone owns Bitcoins. Like Gold Bitcoin is > distributed in large blocks to a few. Exceptions prove the rule. In = the > last 6 years the 1MB limit has been sufficient. I don't think that we > will hit the 8MB limit in the next 6 years, except for stress tests = and > spam. You can think what you like, but I find your position on this specious. = You don=E2=80=99t know if we will hit that limit in the next 6 years. = All it takes is one moderately successful application and we could be = hitting that limit with very little warning. It could be open bazaar, = or something else. Stating that =E2=80=9Ceven after 6 years, hardly = anyone owns Bitcoins.=E2=80=9D as a justification that it will stay = small doesn=E2=80=99t hold water either in terms of common sense or when = looking at other standards evolving through history. TCP/IP was = declared as a standard by the US Military in 1982 and became a public = standard in 1985. Normal people didn=E2=80=99t start using TCP/IP until = much later, when Mark Andreessen created the Mosaic internet browser, = the precursor to Netscape. It was released in 1993. Widespread use = didn=E2=80=99t really kick in until the second half of that decade. The = reference bitcoin client was released in January 2009. So it=E2=80=99s = basically 1988 for bitcoin, if we use the internet as a proxy - one way = to look at it. The telephone even took 50 years to become widespread.=20= > I don't think that a relative tight block size could harm Bitcoin > middle-term. Only experienced users penetrate the block chain = directly. > They know what they are doing and deal with problems. When space for > transactions starts to become scarce and the fees rise too much, the > developers have enough time to make a change. It would then also not = so > controversial. A matter of a few days or weeks. Especially if all > necessary preparations have already been taken. This is insane. You actually believe this? Capping the block size at = 1MB doesn=E2=80=99t just cause fees to rise. It caps transactions that = can be performed. This caps the number of users who can access bitcoin, = directly cuts demand, which kills the price, which kills the mining, and = BAM Rome falls. Only experienced users can =E2=80=9Cpenetrate=E2=80=99 = the block chain directly? Seriously? You download a software = application, or sign up for a web wallet, buy some bitcoin on an = exchange or have a friend send you some, and send it. Try bread wallet. = My mom can do it. She is in her 70=E2=80=99s and couldn=E2=80=99t = program a VCR 20 years ago. I am just going to stop here. I really hope you change the way you are = looking at bitcoin. This is not what it was meant to be, and if it ever = becomes this, I=E2=80=99m not going to be interested in it. > On Aug 21, 2015, at 11:31 AM, Oliver Egginger = wrote: >=20 > Am 21.08.2015 um 15:34 schrieb Will Madden: >> Keeping the block size at 1mb restricts the number of active users of = bitcoin to around 100,000 people transacting twice a day on blockchain. =20= >> BItcoin is a protocol. Protocols are successful because of their = network effect. Capping the block size freezes bitcoin=E2=80=99s = network effect, limits users and prevents new users from joining (which = will cut demand to exchange bitcoin) and also freeze the economic = incentive to mine, because it will hurt the price. =20 >=20 > As a protocol Bitcoin could support millions of full nodes. What you > talking about is the number of shareholders. But these are poorly > determined by the block size. The number of shareholders is determined > by many parameter but manly by the decreasing-supply algorithm. Which > "was chosen because it approximates the rate at which commodities like > gold are mined". See: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Controlled_supply >=20 > While the decreasing-supply algorithm of Bitcoin has many advantage = it's > very hard to believe that the block chain will ever reach mass = adoption. > Even after 6 years, hardly anyone owns Bitcoins. Like Gold Bitcoin is > distributed in large blocks to a few. Exceptions prove the rule. In = the > last 6 years the 1MB limit has been sufficient. I don't think that we > will hit the 8MB limit in the next 6 years, except for stress tests = and > spam. >=20 >> Freezing bitcoin=E2=80=99s growth for any meaningful length of time = will >> threaten its position as the leading cryptocurrency. >=20 > I don't think that a relative tight block size could harm Bitcoin > middle-term. Only experienced users penetrate the block chain = directly. > They know what they are doing and deal with problems. When space for > transactions starts to become scarce and the fees rise too much, the > developers have enough time to make a change. It would then also not = so > controversial. A matter of a few days or weeks. Especially if all > necessary preparations have already been taken. >=20 > But I know that my opinion is very different from other claims. = However, > reliable people share some more fatalism as I'm currently find in some > parts of the the Bitcoin community. Fear is a very bad adviser and can > make a genius stupid. >=20 > - oliver >=20