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 843ED3C8 for ; Fri, 31 Jul 2015 11:51:06 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-wi0-f172.google.com (mail-wi0-f172.google.com [209.85.212.172]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ADD0A7C for ; Fri, 31 Jul 2015 11:51:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: by wicmv11 with SMTP id mv11so55124846wic.0 for ; Fri, 31 Jul 2015 04:51:04 -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; bh=OsTiQgbevT7zDmtYHdQJW/MgF9t62xO/gkx2t+tVZ68=; b=SJ6IcUYkxEQqXLhVmaomCphVDLGW3TDAdVtZqDyeN9fhcZm7XgV1wIlHAOnzGsWy5X +jIFMaG46uwX5V3WflBh5js7JDQO0XYlnCw2pbaCoLsXSR452iOxabGfXvLAW2sU69aJ XkDLao+ymbeUflTkE63yndVIg70oFWjPL054ZKmbu+oogc6fvbToEEAbb9XEyrlHSseU ar8WtAAlmWAezc1wPiZio3puUQcZ6YFBjxdtGxX4tIUZ/0hIGe+61r5Lc6++B4MaP/q8 gpUeR9wjZKBCYPpxpoWsShAOD08OUNYR4VS86L3PhD+LULgDDi/zPJh3KNFjcHjOHWnP rO2Q== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQk5Nn3WLWBCvt74uHGxyiIqQ40AgNYNcNZH8wyz9wQkkms0khM35UBMOTrATPwLE8OiRO+y MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.180.109.106 with SMTP id hr10mr6375725wib.58.1438343464314; Fri, 31 Jul 2015 04:51:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.194.95.168 with HTTP; Fri, 31 Jul 2015 04:51:04 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2015 13:51:04 +0200 Message-ID: From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= To: Mike Hearn Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 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: Fri, 31 Jul 2015 11:51:06 -0000 On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 12:16 PM, Mike Hearn via bitcoin-dev wrote: >> Well, centralization of mining is already terrible. I see no reason why we >> should encourage making it worse. > > I see constant assertions that node count, mining centralisation, developers > not using Bitcoin Core in their own businesses etc is all to do with block > sizes. But nobody has shown that. Nobody has even laid the groundwork for > that. Verifying blocks takes milliseconds and downloading them takes seconds > everywhere except, apparently, China: this resource usage is trivial. He is not saying that. Whatever the reasons for centralization are, it is obvious that increasing the size won't help. In the best case, it will only make it slightly worse. How big of a "slightly worse" are we willing to risk to increase the size is the open question. > So I see no reason why arbitrarily capping the block size will move the > needle on these metrics. Trying to arrest the growth of Bitcoin for everyone > won't suddenly make Bitcoin-Qt a competitive wallet, or make service devs > migrate away from chain.com, or make merchants stop using BitPay. As far as I know, people just want to change an arbitrary number for another arbitrary number. But this arbitrary cap is a cap to centralization, not a tool to make Bitcoin-Qt more important or to attack concrete Bitcoin companies like you seem to think. If you don't think the blocksize cap helps limiting centralization and you think it would be fine to completely remove it, then it would be better for the conversation that you said that directly instead of supporting other arbitrary caps like 8GB (bip101). 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. Even if the first definition of this "centralization heuristic" is stupid, it would be better than keep rolling dices and heatedly defend one result over another. To reiterate, If you don't think the blocksize cap helps limiting centralization, please, say so. If we can't agree on what the limit is for, we will never be able to agree on whether 1MB (current situation) or 8GB (bip101) is the most appropriate value to have at a given point in time. >> We need to accept that, and all previous proposals I've seen don't seem to >> do that. > > I think that's a bit unfair: BIP 101 keeps a cap. Even with 8mb+growth > you're right, some use cases will be priced out. I initiated the > micropayment channels project (along with Matt, tip of the hat) specifically > to optimise a certain class of transactions. Even with 8mb+ blocks, there > will still be a need for micropayment channels, centralised exchange > platforms and other forms of off chain transaction. Lightning is nothing more than a better design for trustless payment channels, but it's really good that you agree that if we want to scale not everything can be broadcast in-chain. >> If Bitcoin needs to support a large scale, it already failed. > > It hasn't even been tried. What he means is that if Bitcoin needs to support a scale that is only feasible with high degrees of centralization (say, supporting 1 M tx/s right now), then it has already failed in its decentralization goals. In fact, with only a few miners, I'm not sure regulators will still agree Bitcoin transactions are irreversible... But you are right, we haven't tried to destroy bitcoin by removing the only available consensus tool to limit centralization yet. I don't want to try, do you? > A decentralised currency that the vast majority can't use doesn't change the > amount of centralisation in the world. Most people will still end up using > banks, with all the normal problems. You cannot solve a problem by creating > a theoretically pure solution that's out of reach of ordinary people: just > ask academic cryptographers! Let's go to "most people use bitcoin" first and then think about "many people ONLY use Bitcoin" later, please. I believe everybody here thinks that the more people are able to use Bitcoin, the better. But that doesn't > All the plans for some kind of ultra-throttled Bitcoin network used for > infrequent transactions neglect to ask where the infrastructure for that > will come from. The network of exchanges, payment processors and startups > that are paying people to build infrastructure are all based on the > assumption that the market will grow significantly. It's a gamble at best > because Bitcoin's success is not guaranteed, but if the block chain cannot > grow it's a gamble that is guaranteed to be lost. Risking destroying Bitcoin through centralization to be able to keep free transactions for longer it's a very risky gamble. Doing so explicitly against the will of some of the users by promoting schism hardfork, and thus risking to economically destroy both Bitcoin and Bitcoin_new_size (different currencies) in the process is also a very risky gamble. So may want to give some example of responsibility yourself to make these calls to responsibility more credible. You certainly cannot know what "all the payment processors and startups plans" are based on, and spreading conspiracy theories about the evil secret plans of Blockstream (or any other Bitcoin company) doesn't help in keeping this discussion civilized, contaminates bitcoin development in general and unhealthily polarizes the whole Bitcoin ecosystem. Also, I believe is doing a disservice to your reputation among technical people, but since you don't seem worried about that, why should I be? > 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? I assume not, but I'm really having troubles trying to read the question with another meaning. Can you rephrase this, please?