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 11759407 for ; Fri, 31 Jul 2015 12:15:06 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-ig0-f177.google.com (mail-ig0-f177.google.com [209.85.213.177]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6B69AFA for ; Fri, 31 Jul 2015 12:15:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: by igbij6 with SMTP id ij6so15052674igb.1 for ; Fri, 31 Jul 2015 05:15:05 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=vinumeris.com; s=google; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=iywlwQzDlW5LRDxS/df1DgowTnvP386SP1N2uFzs8GE=; b=b6BZOCvpLwHEdJgvS890xcRIy4I65XzqI5KaI2bdQbYnniBuxX7ABoBKOkctBZ37sw WaLeAbMBrYNfLQPRNUTpPiqKKrrvKQdWBGWWncID27SN3MV1lh3d6z/Xg+kLAK9pCpGd EOm9jlt5rEwfo95jQTyVe5HbKT1+LSGttH78s= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=iywlwQzDlW5LRDxS/df1DgowTnvP386SP1N2uFzs8GE=; b=ZLH55c2fbsyG2QOHfakZXdNSVq6ATflbPJE1Mryeyeb1oKLOzPA4He25aoT8tMtY6D UB7g0VtmmJBTuaqN7IiuygQMck/vX0Gc4YO4HC43mBmtcYMFmoI+KgrFQymeXYONPsVL zVo9zJ8EAyR4Atbhn2sPFWPVolwYb9Wgw6W7Zj1i+ByOUxTO5H0kb1CM5xZ5Ovf7avbM edAE0aTeuR0ODI1jRZBLh5sZ6MyphwhSKEI1zTc28cEZQ17tEQnh5aD6WbE+ZtMd+OQ3 ljP1O2mE/8T8zRCFIvHnoVtsXYAlWzoMXan+hf2d58KlXlK7bcPzbUzxv3WyEN9svkTl hLPQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkh55TijjvKfBUwXkDtPPtnXqbInG4arqYuwHihWiIKoIVJGLTxn04JkKMomOO9xs+AzzbV MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.50.45.41 with SMTP id j9mr5415013igm.34.1438344904865; Fri, 31 Jul 2015 05:15:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.50.108.111 with HTTP; Fri, 31 Jul 2015 05:15:04 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2015 14:15:04 +0200 Message-ID: From: Mike Hearn To: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0111ba961e973d051c2ac582 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HTML_MESSAGE,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 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Block size following technological growth 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, 31 Jul 2015 12:15:06 -0000 --089e0111ba961e973d051c2ac582 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Hey Jorge, He is not saying that. Whatever the reasons for centralization are, it > is obvious that increasing the size won't help. > It's not obvious. Quite possibly bigger blocks == more users == more nodes and more miners. To repeat: it's not obvious to me at all that everything wrong with Bitcoin can be solved by shrinking blocks. I don't think that's going to suddenly make everything magically more decentralised. The 8mb cap isn't quite arbitrary. It was picked through negotiation with different stakeholders, in particular, Chinese miners. But it should be high enough to ensure organic growth is not constrained, which is good enough. I think it would be nice to have some sort of simulation to calculate > a "centralization heuristic" for different possible blocksize values > so we can compare these arbitrary numbers somehow. Centralization is not a single floating point value that is controlled by block size. It's a multi-faceted and complex problem. You cannot "destroy Bitcoin through centralization" by adjusting a single constant in the source code. To say once more: block size won't make much difference to how many merchants rely on payment processors because they aren't using them due to block processing overheads anyway. So trying to calculate such a formula won't work. Ditto for end users on phones, ditto for developers who want JSON/REST access to an indexed block chain, or hosted wallet services, or miners who want to reduce variance. None of these factors have anything to do with traffic levels. What people like you are Pieter are doing is making a single number a kind of proxy for all fears and concerns about the trend towards outsourcing in the Bitcoin community. Everything gets compressed down to one number you feel you can control, whether it is relevant or not. > So why should anyone go through the massive hassle of setting up > exchanges, > > without the lure of large future profits? > > Are you suggesting that bitcoin consensus rules should be designed > to maximize the profits of Bitcoin exchanges? > That isn't what I said at all Jorge. Let me try again. Setting up an exchange is a lot of risky and expensive work. The motivation is profit, and profits are higher when there are more users to sell to. This is business 101. If you remove the potential for future profit, you remove the motivation to create the services that we now enjoy and take for granted. Because if you think Bitcoin can be useful without exchanges then let me tell you, I was around when there were none. Bitcoin was useless. --089e0111ba961e973d051c2ac582 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hey Jorge,

He is not saying that. Whateve= r the reasons for centralization are, it
is obvious that increasing the size won't help.
It's not obvious. Quite possibly bigger blocks =3D=3D more= users =3D=3D more nodes and more miners.

To repea= t: it's not obvious to me at all that everything wrong with Bitcoin can= be solved by shrinking blocks. I don't think that's going to sudde= nly make everything magically more decentralised.

= The 8mb cap isn't quite arbitrary. It was picked through negotiation wi= th different stakeholders, in particular, Chinese miners. But it should be = high enough to ensure organic growth is not constrained, which is good enou= gh.

I think it would be = nice to have some sort of simulation to calculate
a "centralization heuristic" for different possible blocksize val= ues
so we can compare these arbitrary numbers somehow.

Centralization is not a single floating point value that is contro= lled by block size. It's a multi-faceted and complex problem. You canno= t "destroy Bitcoin through centralization" by adjusting a single = constant in the source code.

To say once more: blo= ck size won't make much difference to how many merchants rely on paymen= t processors because they aren't using them due to block processing ove= rheads anyway. So trying to calculate such a formula won't work. Ditto = for end users on phones, ditto for developers who want JSON/REST access to = an indexed block chain, or hosted wallet services, or miners who want to re= duce variance.

None of these factors have anything= to do with traffic levels.

What people like you a= re Pieter are doing is making a single number a kind of proxy for all fears= and concerns about the trend towards outsourcing in the Bitcoin community.= Everything gets compressed down to one number you feel you can control, wh= ether it is relevant or not.

> So why should anyone go through the massive hass= le of setting up exchanges,
> without the lure of large future profits?

Are you suggesting that bitcoin consensus rules should be designed t= o=C2=A0maximize the profits of Bitcoin exchanges?

=
That isn't what I said at all Jorge. Let me try again.
=

Setting up an exchange is a lot of risky and expensive = work. The motivation is profit, and profits are higher when there are more = users to sell to. This is business 101.

If you rem= ove the potential for future profit, you remove the motivation to create th= e services that we now enjoy and take for granted. Because if you think Bit= coin can be useful without exchanges then let me tell you, I was around whe= n there were none. Bitcoin was useless.
--089e0111ba961e973d051c2ac582--