public inbox for bitcoindev@googlegroups.com
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Ivan Brightly <ibrightly@gmail.com>
To: Adam Back <adam@cypherspace.org>
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>,
	Washington Sanchez <washington.sanchez@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Dynamic limit to the block size - BIP draft discussion
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2015 09:52:00 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAAre=yTP07HQZesCgyAVQ9UqyJ98UhLLa8cTPNi7F+e6Ht05fg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CALqxMTERUFEFgJ4quz2dWLRw9fD3DkBp-6RO4cuvdBGV2MSyhw@mail.gmail.com>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2530 bytes --]

Agreed. For this reason, the scaling BIPs which don't allow for easy gaming
such as BIP101, your proposal or Pieter's are preferable for their
predictability and simplicity. Changing the fundamental rules for Bitcoin
is supposed to be hard - why give this power up to a subsection of the
ecosystem in order to make it easier to change or game?

On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 9:13 AM, Adam Back <adam@cypherspace.org> wrote:

> The maximum block-size is one that can be filled at zero-cost by
> miners, and so allows some kinds of amplification of selfish-mining
> related attacks.
>
> Adam
>
>
> On 8 September 2015 at 13:28, Ivan Brightly via bitcoin-dev
> <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > This is true, but miners already control block size through soft caps.
> > Miners are fully capable of producing smaller blocks regardless of the
> max
> > block limit, with or without collusion. Arguably, there is no need to
> ever
> > reduce the max block size unless technology advances for some reason
> reverse
> > course - aka, WW3 takes a toll on the internet and the average bandwidth
> > available halves. The likelihood of significant technology contraction in
> > the near future seems rather unlikely and is more broadly problematic for
> > society than bitcoin specifically.
> >
> > The only reason for reducing the max block limit other than technology
> > availability is if you think that this is what will produce the fee
> market,
> > which is back to an economic discussion - not a technology scaling
> > discussion.
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 4:49 AM, Btc Drak via bitcoin-dev
> > <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> > but allow meaningful relief to transaction volume pressure in response
> >> > to true market demand
> >>
> >> If blocksize can only increase then it's like a market that only goes
> >> up which is unrealistic. Transaction will volume ebb and flow
> >> significantly. Some people have been looking at transaction volume
> >> charts over time and all they can see is an exponential curve which
> >> they think will go on forever, yet nothing goes up forever and it will
> >> go through significant trend cycles (like everything does). If you
> >> dont want to hurt the fee market, the blocksize has to be elastic and
> >> allow contraction as well as expansion.
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > bitcoin-dev mailing list
> > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
> >
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3408 bytes --]

  reply	other threads:[~2015-09-08 13:52 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2015-09-08  7:45 [bitcoin-dev] Dynamic limit to the block size - BIP draft discussion Washington Sanchez
2015-09-08  8:49 ` Btc Drak
2015-09-08 12:28   ` Ivan Brightly
2015-09-08 13:13     ` Adam Back
2015-09-08 13:52       ` Ivan Brightly [this message]
2015-09-08 14:02       ` Washington Sanchez
2015-09-08 14:18         ` Adam Back
2015-09-08 15:10           ` Washington Sanchez
2015-09-08 16:46             ` Andrew Johnson
2015-09-08 17:04             ` Gavin Andresen
2015-09-08 23:11               ` Washington Sanchez
2015-09-09 13:10                 ` Washington Sanchez

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to='CAAre=yTP07HQZesCgyAVQ9UqyJ98UhLLa8cTPNi7F+e6Ht05fg@mail.gmail.com' \
    --to=ibrightly@gmail.com \
    --cc=adam@cypherspace.org \
    --cc=bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org \
    --cc=washington.sanchez@gmail.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox