public inbox for bitcoindev@googlegroups.com
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Jorge Timón" <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
To: Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com>
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Block size following technological growth
Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2015 19:15:02 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CABm2gDok2WuYhGtqqvaJPez4i8Y8E4MXcCrg81ewK2j=grd45A@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CABsx9T3ARTAV58LYSr40VJsttO5kAtLxMDMZwkKH+ztXYw13mg@mail.gmail.com>

First of all, thank you very much for answering the questions, and
apologies for not having formulated them properly (fortunately that's
not an irreparable mistake).

On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 6:03 PM, Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 11:25 AM, Jorge Timón <jtimon@jtimon.cc> wrote:
>>
>> 1) If "not now" when will it be a good time to let fees rise above zero?
>
>
> Fees are already above zero. See
> http://gavinandresen.ninja/the-myth-of-not-full-blocks

When we talk about "fees" we're talking about different things. I
should have been more specific.
Average fees are greatly influenced by wallet and policy defaults, and
they also include extra fees that are included for fast confirmation.
I'm not talking about fast confirmation transactions, but about
non-urgent transactions.

What is the market minimum fee for miners to mine a transaction?

That's currently zero.
If you don't want to directly look at what blocks contain, we can also
use a fee estimator and define a "non-urgent period", say 1 week worth
of blocks (1008 blocks).
The chart in your link doesn't include a 1008 blocks line, but the 15
blocks (about 2.5 hours) line seems to already show zero fees:

http://img.svbtle.com/p4x3s7fn52sz9a.png

So I reformulate the question:

1) If "not now", when will it be a good time to let the "market
minimum fee for miners to mine a transaction" 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)?
>
>
> http://gavinandresen.ninja/does-more-transactions-necessarily-mean-more-centralized

This just shows where the 20 GB come from, not why you would reject 21 GB.
Let me rephrase.

2) Do you have any criterion (automatic or not) that can result in you
saying "no, this is too much" for any proposed size?
Since you don't think the consensus block size maximum limits mining
centralization (as you later say), it must be based on something else.
In any case, if you lack a criterion that's fine as well: it's never
too late to have one.
Would you agree that blocksize increase proposals should have such a
criterion/test?

>> 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 don't believe that the maximum block size has much at all to do with
> mining centralization, so I don't accept the premise of the question.

Ok, this is an enormous step forward in the discussion, thank you.
In my opinion all discussions will be sterile while we can't even
agree on what are the positive effects of the consensus rule that
supposedly needs to be changed.

It's not that you don't care about centralization, it's that you don't
believe that a consensus block size maximum limits centralization at
all.
This means that if I can convince you that the consensus block size
maximum does in fact limit centralization in any way, you may change
your views about the whole blocksize consensus rule change, you may
even take back or change your own proposal.
But let's leave that aside that for now.

Regardless of the history of the consensus rule (which I couldn't care
less about), I believe the only function that the maximum block size
rule currently serves is limiting centralization.
Since you deny that function, do you think the (artificial) consensus
rule is currently serving any other purpose that I'm missing?

If the answer is something along the lines of "not really, it's just
technical debt", then I think you should be honest and consequent, and
directly advocate for the complete removal of the consensus rule.

I really think conversations can't really advance until we clarify the
different positions about the discussed consensus rule current
purpose.


  parent reply	other threads:[~2015-08-06 17:15 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 111+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2015-07-30 14:25 [bitcoin-dev] Block size following technological growth Pieter Wuille
2015-07-30 15:04 ` Greg Sanders
2015-07-30 15:12 ` Jorge Timón
2015-07-30 16:23   ` Jameson Lopp
2015-07-30 16:36     ` Bryan Bishop
2015-07-30 16:43       ` Jameson Lopp
2015-07-30 16:36   ` Venzen Khaosan
2015-07-30 17:51     ` Jorge Timón
2015-07-30 18:00       ` Jorge Timón
2015-07-30 16:56   ` Gary Mulder
2015-07-30 17:13     ` Mark Friedenbach
2015-07-30 16:20 ` Gavin Andresen
2015-07-30 16:41   ` Suhas Daftuar
2015-07-30 16:48   ` Adam Back
2015-07-30 16:49   ` Pieter Wuille
2015-07-31 10:16     ` Mike Hearn
2015-07-31 11:43       ` Venzen Khaosan
2015-07-31 11:51       ` Jorge Timón
2015-07-31 12:15         ` Mike Hearn
2015-07-31 13:07           ` Marcel Jamin
2015-07-31 14:33           ` Jorge Timón
2015-07-31 14:58             ` Mike Hearn
2015-07-31 15:28               ` Venzen Khaosan
2015-07-31 20:09               ` Elliot Olds
2015-08-04 10:35               ` Jorge Timón
2015-08-04 11:04                 ` Hector Chu
2015-08-04 11:27                   ` Pieter Wuille
2015-08-04 11:34                     ` Hector Chu
2015-08-04 12:10                       ` Venzen Khaosan
2015-08-04 13:13                       ` Jorge Timón
2015-08-04 13:28                         ` Hector Chu
2015-08-04 13:42                           ` Venzen Khaosan
2015-08-04 17:59                           ` Jorge Timón
2015-08-04 13:12                     ` Gavin Andresen
2015-08-04 13:54                       ` Pieter Wuille
2015-08-04 14:30                       ` Venzen Khaosan
2015-08-04 14:43                         ` [bitcoin-dev] Fwd: " Venzen Khaosan
2015-08-04 14:45                       ` [bitcoin-dev] " Alex Morcos
2015-08-05  8:14                       ` Gareth Williams
2015-08-04 11:59                   ` Jorge Timón
2015-08-04 12:19                     ` Hector Chu
2015-08-04 13:34                       ` Venzen Khaosan
2015-08-04 13:37                       ` Jorge Timón
2015-08-05  7:29                     ` Elliot Olds
2015-08-06  1:26                       ` Jorge Timón
2015-08-06 13:40                         ` Gavin Andresen
2015-08-06 14:06                           ` Pieter Wuille
2015-08-06 14:21                             ` Gavin Andresen
2015-08-06 14:53                               ` Pieter Wuille
     [not found]                                 ` <CABsx9T0B2bZrFHxYR_QNwBmxskQx31zt=QE5BJAYjcOo7wbo3A@mail.gmail.com>
2015-08-06 15:24                                   ` [bitcoin-dev] Fwd: " Gavin Andresen
2015-08-06 15:26                                     ` Pieter Wuille
2015-08-06 18:43                                       ` Michael Naber
2015-08-06 18:52                                         ` Pieter Wuille
2015-08-07 16:06                                           ` Thomas Zander
2015-08-07 16:30                                             ` Pieter Wuille
2015-08-07 17:00                                               ` Thomas Zander
2015-08-07 17:09                                                 ` Pieter Wuille
2015-08-07 21:35                                                   ` Thomas Zander
2015-08-07 22:53                                                     ` Adam Back
2015-08-08 16:54                                                       ` Dave Scotese
2015-08-07 17:50                                               ` Gavin Andresen
2015-08-07 18:05                                                 ` Jameson Lopp
2015-08-07 18:10                                                 ` Pieter Wuille
2015-08-07 21:43                                                   ` Thomas Zander
2015-08-07 22:00                                                   ` Thomas Zander
2015-08-06 16:19                                 ` [bitcoin-dev] " Tom Harding
2015-08-06 21:56                               ` Peter Todd
2015-08-06 15:25                           ` Jorge Timón
2015-08-06 16:03                             ` Gavin Andresen
2015-08-06 16:11                               ` Mike Hearn
2015-08-06 17:15                               ` Jorge Timón [this message]
2015-08-06 19:42                                 ` Gavin Andresen
2015-08-06 20:01                                   ` Pieter Wuille
2015-08-06 21:51                                   ` Jorge Timón
2015-08-06 23:09                         ` Elliot Olds
2015-08-10 19:28                           ` Jorge Timón
2015-08-11  5:48                             ` Elliot Olds
2015-08-09 18:46                   ` [bitcoin-dev] What Lightning Is Tom Harding
2015-08-09 18:54                     ` Mark Friedenbach
2015-08-09 20:14                       ` Hector Chu
     [not found]                         ` <CAOG=w-s9KsaPwveSpgdvsVTWUDV77YY7Em7NZGyxSQMMCccYSg@mail.gmail.com>
2015-08-09 20:48                           ` Hector Chu
2015-08-10  4:48                             ` Joseph Poon
2015-08-10 17:03                         ` odinn
2015-08-10 17:14                           ` Pieter Wuille
2015-08-10 17:45                             ` odinn
2015-08-09 21:27                       ` Tom Harding
2015-08-09 21:40                         ` Chris Pacia
2015-08-09 21:45                         ` Hector Chu
2015-08-09 21:57                           ` Patrick Strateman
2015-08-09 22:03                             ` Hector Chu
2015-08-09 22:36                               ` Patrick Strateman
2015-08-10  1:52                           ` Tom Harding
2015-08-10  3:31                             ` Patrick Strateman
2015-08-09 22:06                         ` Patrick Strateman
2015-08-09 22:09                           ` Hector Chu
2015-08-09 22:27                             ` Patrick Strateman
2015-08-09 22:30                               ` Hector Chu
2015-08-09 22:44                             ` Gavin Andresen
2015-08-09 22:51                               ` Btc Drak
2015-08-10  8:27                                 ` Thomas Zander
2015-08-10  8:36                                   ` Patrick Strateman
2015-08-10  4:39                               ` Joseph Poon
2015-08-10 21:02                               ` Anthony Towns
2015-08-10 21:19                                 ` Anthony Towns
2015-08-10 21:43                                   ` Adam Back
2015-08-11  9:01                                     ` Hector Chu
2015-08-11 17:17                                       ` Simon Liu
2015-07-31 14:52           ` [bitcoin-dev] Block size following technological growth Bryan Bishop
2015-07-30 17:46   ` Jorge Timón
2015-08-02 22:35   ` Anthony Towns
2015-07-30 20:20 ` Thomas Zander

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='CABm2gDok2WuYhGtqqvaJPez4i8Y8E4MXcCrg81ewK2j=grd45A@mail.gmail.com' \
    --to=jtimon@jtimon.cc \
    --cc=bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org \
    --cc=gavinandresen@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