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 788908E6 for ; Thu, 6 Aug 2015 15:25:50 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-wi0-f181.google.com (mail-wi0-f181.google.com [209.85.212.181]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 76DD2168 for ; Thu, 6 Aug 2015 15:25:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: by wibxm9 with SMTP id xm9so27325000wib.0 for ; Thu, 06 Aug 2015 08:25:48 -0700 (PDT) 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 :content-transfer-encoding; bh=OwpAx6rvEgtZiGiOXSrOLU0zRm48K04j9fi5inKXUvI=; b=KhIMoLpMN2EOj7YcS03HG6gmRx+xkKgnIah0bYVGPst7JJ+JPWjDDLr9Jh8bhwXNyZ zUnH+a3pC5p2BzbyyuESA2v05krxP+K8g/FXmjio4H+fs4jM7m8A6yxiYtq7AyV3abZz Nsar4Km8PX0/hVffHcAEy7pxxjUj50OU7Z0ERAvlYVvRionC4HVLPr855uw9ftxzwHJf YugQGXQ/PebP8hQdyELwod34vVRiwOWbn8HMfyBcnepX4VXAuInGggTTq1zqO/kn4wBD CdIyffQ5b+I1FQnEfXU+U/fu7sGMLz9g819o33ZfDcztqKQ6V/ny53EiVWHvhNrD7OvP K9kQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmVLDYdd7SRdEfgruQvCQofSvglJCxIgN6i9ZOV+tQqs1mVTky+TCvsa4iLcCF9GZk/8erB MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.194.238.39 with SMTP id vh7mr4233713wjc.109.1438874748131; Thu, 06 Aug 2015 08:25:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.194.31.230 with HTTP; Thu, 6 Aug 2015 08:25:47 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2015 17:25:47 +0200 Message-ID: From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= To: Gavin Andresen Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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 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: Thu, 06 Aug 2015 15:25:50 -0000 On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 3:40 PM, Gavin Andresen wr= ote: > On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 9:26 PM, Jorge Tim=C3=B3n > wrote: >> >> This is a much more reasonable position. I wish this had been starting >> point of this discussion instead of "the block size limit must be >> increased as soon as possible or bitcoin will fail". > > > It REALLY doesn't help the debate when you say patently false statements > like that. I'm pretty sure that I can quote Mike Hearn with a sentence extremely similar to that in this forum or in some of his blog posts (not in https://medium.com/@octskyward/crash-landing-f5cc19908e32 at a first glance...). But yeah, what people said in the past is not very important: people change their minds (they even acknowledge their mistake some times). What interests me more it's what people think now. I don't want to put words in your mouth and you are more than welcome to correct what I think you think with what you really think. All I'm trying to do is framing your fears properly. If I say "all fears related to not raising the block size limit in the short term can be summarized as a fear of fees rising in the short term". Am I correct? Am I missing some other argument? Of course, problems that need to be solved regardless of the block size (like an unbounded mempool) should not be considered for this discussion. > My first blog post on this issue is here: > http://gavinandresen.ninja/why-increasing-the-max-block-size-is-urgent > > ... and I NEVER say "Bitcoin will fail". I say: > > "If the number of transactions waiting gets large enough, the end result > will be an over-saturated network, busy doing nothing productive. I don= =E2=80=99t > think that is likely=E2=80=93 it is more likely people just stop using Bi= tcoin > because transaction confirmation becomes increasingly unreliable." If you pay high enough fees your transactions will be likely mined in the next block. So this seems to be reducible to the "fees rising" concern unless I am missing something. > So please stop with the over-the-top claims about what "the other side" > believe, there are enough of those (on both sides of the debate) on reddi= t. > I'd really like to focus on how to move forward, and how best to resolve > difficult questions like this in the future. I think I would have a much better understanding of what "the other side" thinks if I ever got an answer to a couple of very simple questions I have been repeating ad nausea: 1) If "not now" when will it be a good time to let fees rise above zero? 2) When will you consider a size to be too dangerous for centralization? In other words, why 20 GB would have been safe but 21 GB wouldn't have been (or the respective maximums and respective +1 for each block increase proposal)? On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 4:21 PM, Gavin Andresen wr= ote: > What is bad is artificially limiting or centrally controlling the supply = of > that space. 3) Does this mean that you would be in favor of completely removing the consensus rule that limits mining centralization by imposing an artificial (like any other consensus rule) block size maximum? I've been insistently repeating this question too. Admittedly, it would be a great disappointment if your answer to this question is "yes": that can only mean that either you don't understand how the consensus rule limits mining centralization or that you don't care about mining centralization at all. If you really want things to move forward, please, prove it by answering these questions so that we don't have to imagine what the answers are (because what we imagine is probably much worse than your actual answers). I'm more than willing to stop trying to imagine what "big block advocates" think, but I need your answers from the "big block advocates". Asking repeatedly doesn't seem to be effective. So I will answer the questions myself in the worse possible way I think a "big block advocate" could answer them. Feel free to replace my stupid answers with your own: ----------------------- (FICTION ANSWERS [given the lack of real answers]) 3) Does this mean that you would be in favor of completely removing the consensus rule that limits mining centralization by imposing an artificial (like any other consensus rule) block size maximum? Yes, I would remove the rule because I don't care about mining centralizati= on. 2) When will you consider a size to be too dangerous for centralization? In other words, why 20 GB would have been safe but 21 GB wouldn't have been (or the respective maximums and respective +1 for each block increase proposal)? Never, as said I don't care about mining centralization. I thought users and Bitcoin companies would agree with a 20 GB limit hardfork with proper lobbying, but I certainly prefer 21 GB. >From 1 MB to infinity, the bigger the better, always. 1) If "not now" when will it be a good time to let fees rise above zero? Never. Fees are just an excuse, the real goal is making Bitcoin centralized= . ------------------------ I'm quite confident that you will have better answers than those. Please, let me know what you think.