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 A0A74481 for ; Thu, 30 Jul 2015 15:55:53 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-lb0-f174.google.com (mail-lb0-f174.google.com [209.85.217.174]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BC162F7 for ; Thu, 30 Jul 2015 15:55:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: by lbbud7 with SMTP id ud7so26053124lbb.3 for ; Thu, 30 Jul 2015 08:55:51 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=okAhCAFjp+N0s/xrelg9FP7CiVSanrDfqVXcuosuiKs=; b=B/vlHzG7Nmk/LvrVGA+OrjY76tJhdCNRqM8bad8Im4vje9U6L1L0qCcsOcUi5xJfja 52tbC4HPfBqRSgDRqBLmjtTEMvjGY8CoMgwqTjEOn4r0ireHHqZOcLonY1JTUw4dMTX5 8J6tG1Txp6aXpa8ogoojjq/qhBiZVUvmQLOjUnnNJBsH3zlrsqGjaJ4V1XC/FJBAzfv4 M+/RTKByf6CLDNKpPrAKBw76V+7cC6LIdI/0VOGQJ4n1WEdMFxz7sA2CeC3UEvsS6pmD s20k6urLfxAzqDZDXSmSAcPo2/JEvag4CQEZnnJxtV9UMBOvM+swLhyNGH8h5+4WFfH/ 5Eyw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.152.203.233 with SMTP id kt9mr39643987lac.99.1438271750776; Thu, 30 Jul 2015 08:55:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.25.18.228 with HTTP; Thu, 30 Jul 2015 08:55:50 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <1B7F00D3-41AE-44BF-818D-EC4EF279DC11@gmail.com> <55B9EB68.9020703@mail.bihthai.net> <2905605.OvbZMWuhGy@coldstorage> Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 11:55:50 -0400 Message-ID: From: Gavin Andresen To: Bryan Bishop Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11345984cbad0d051c19bc42 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] Why Satoshi's temporary anti-spam measure isn'ttemporary 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, 30 Jul 2015 15:55:53 -0000 --001a11345984cbad0d051c19bc42 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 11:24 AM, Bryan Bishop via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > Because any decentralized system is going to have high transaction costs > and scarcity anyway. This is a meme that keeps coming up that I think just isn't true. What other decentralized systems can we look at as role models? How decentralized are they? And why did they succeed when "more efficient" centralized systems did not? The Internet is the most successful decentralized system to date; what lessons should we learn? How decentralized is the technology of the Internet (put aside governance and the issues of who-assigns-blocks-of-IPs-and-registers-domain-names)? How many root DNS servers? How many BGP routers along the backbone would need to be compromised to disrupt traffic? Why don't we see more disruptions, or why are people willing to tolerate the disruptions that DO happen? And how did the Internet out-compete more efficient centralized systems from the big telecom companies? (I remember some of the arguments that unreliable, inefficient packet-switching would never replace dedicated circuits that couldn't get congested and didn't have inefficient timeouts and retransmissions) What other successful or unsuccessful decentralized systems should we be looking at? I'm old-- I graduated from college in 1988, so I've worked in tech through the entire rise of the Internet. The lessons I believe we should take away is that a system doesn't have to be perfect to be successful, and we shouldn't underestimate people's ability to innovate around what might seem to be insurmountable problems, IF people are given the ability to innovate. Yes, people will innovate within a 1MB (or 1MB-scaling-to-2MB by 2021) max block size, and yes, smaller blocks have utility. But I think we'll get a lot more innovation and utility without such small, artificial limits. -- -- Gavin Andresen --001a11345984cbad0d051c19bc42 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On T= hu, Jul 30, 2015 at 11:24 AM, Bryan Bishop via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
Because any decentralized system is going to have = high transaction costs and scarcity anyway.

This is a= meme that keeps coming up that I think just isn't true.

What other decentral= ized systems can we look at as role models?

How decentralized are they?

And why did the= y succeed when "more efficient" centralized systems did not?


=
The Internet is the most successful decentralize= d system to date; what lessons should we learn?

How decentralized is the technolo= gy of the Internet (put aside governance and the issues of who-assigns-bloc= ks-of-IPs-and-registers-domain-names)? How many root DNS servers?=C2=A0 How= many BGP routers along the backbone would need to be compromised to disrup= t traffic? Why don't we see more disruptions, or why are people willing= to tolerate the disruptions that DO happen?

And how did the Internet out-compete= more efficient centralized systems from the big telecom companies? =C2=A0(= I remember some of the arguments that unreliable, inefficient packet-switch= ing would never replace dedicated circuits that couldn't get congested = and didn't have inefficient timeouts and retransmissions)

<= /div>

What other successful or unsuccessful decentralize= d systems should we be looking at?


= I'm old-- I graduated from college in 1988, so I've worked in tech = through the entire rise of the Internet. The lessons I believe we should ta= ke away is that a system doesn't have to be perfect to be successful, a= nd we shouldn't underestimate people's ability to innovate around w= hat might seem to be insurmountable problems, IF people are given the abili= ty to innovate.

Yes, people will innovate within a= 1MB (or 1MB-scaling-to-2MB by 2021) max block size, and yes, smaller block= s have utility. But I think we'll get a lot more innovation and utility= without such small, artificial limits.

--
--
Gavin Andresen

--001a11345984cbad0d051c19bc42--