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 88E9D8A7 for ; Wed, 5 Aug 2015 11:36:16 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-la0-f46.google.com (mail-la0-f46.google.com [209.85.215.46]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CB0007C for ; Wed, 5 Aug 2015 11:36:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: by labow3 with SMTP id ow3so26693646lab.1 for ; Wed, 05 Aug 2015 04:36:13 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=kk6wAmKz8KIxeaC19u9wE4hvK1iKs86sGrEqa4nBXFQ=; b=wOX8GHUaIrcjlQ9IfNxlTv4K4mw0lZWKYGOVsswOJpC81WTcxpXHWcfcgLYR5B6fWQ SyME37dskfDIasgx3C2ke6aJqEnZzLDt9HStnO2oslweWWYNM/62cm4hcuU9r/0p0E5e WoIqWeT4T+AZnjIfbJAHaeQMI/CcS59hbvCDUbjbqzS4e8eeftRqBzyDnp4fEF86Gb+R eWN1CJdHsU6iE19PcNWMnNj1EmxvMXDwHRZf3LnX0d04xNnH80Rc7WTy1uGJMUeyrhYq buKgnZ9OesmOO9hMQO/pNh70TohjG/12qlTizAT7iBpEy6cGT9VpUN+p6wB3cqSJOhAy THJw== X-Received: by 10.112.77.103 with SMTP id r7mr8721022lbw.63.1438774573564; Wed, 05 Aug 2015 04:36:13 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.25.22.25 with HTTP; Wed, 5 Aug 2015 04:35:53 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <1438640036.2828.0.camel@auspira.com> From: Hector Chu Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2015 12:35:53 +0100 Message-ID: To: Adam Back Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c3f0265e88ed051c8ecf4d X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,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] "A Transaction Fee Market Exists Without a Block Size Limit"--new research paper suggests 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: Wed, 05 Aug 2015 11:36:16 -0000 --001a11c3f0265e88ed051c8ecf4d Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On 5 August 2015 at 12:07, Adam Back wrote: > This prediction market in block-size seems like something extremely > complex to operate and keep secure in a decentralised fashion. Why would it need to be decentralised? Bitcoin.org could run the exchange, and the profits from the exchange could be used to fund Core development. We also have no particular reason to suppose other than > meta-incentive, that it should result in a secure parameter set. > Security is a continuous variable, trading off against others. If security gradually begins to be threatened as a result of block size gradually increasing, the concerns of users will be enough that the bears will gain control over the bulls on the block size market. I suspect that, while it is interesting in the abstract, it risks > converting a complex security problem into an even more complex one, > rather than constituting an incremental security improvement which is > more the context of day to day discussions here. Hard problems call for complex solutions. --001a11c3f0265e88ed051c8ecf4d Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On 5= August 2015 at 12:07, Adam Back <adam@cypherspace.org> w= rote:
This prediction market in block-siz= e seems like something extremely
complex to operate and keep secure in a decentralised fashion.
=

Why would it need to be decentralised? Bitcoin.org coul= d run the exchange, and the profits from the exchange could be used to fund= Core development.

We al= so have no particular reason to suppose other than
meta-incentive, that it should result in a secure parameter set.

Security is a continuous variable, trading off ag= ainst others. If security gradually begins to be threatened as a result of = block size gradually increasing, the concerns of users will be enough that = the bears will gain control over the bulls on the block size market.
<= div>
I suspect that, while it is interesting in the abstract, it risks
converting a complex security problem into an even more complex one,
rather than constituting an incremental security improvement which is
more the context of day to day discussions here.

Hard problems call for complex solutions.=C2=A0
--001a11c3f0265e88ed051c8ecf4d--