From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1Ytn43-0006TT-CP for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sun, 17 May 2015 01:08:23 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.192.50 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.192.50; envelope-from=voisine@gmail.com; helo=mail-qg0-f50.google.com; Received: from mail-qg0-f50.google.com ([209.85.192.50]) by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1Ytn42-0008VV-HR for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sun, 17 May 2015 01:08:23 +0000 Received: by qgfa7 with SMTP id a7so20573323qgf.1 for ; Sat, 16 May 2015 18:08:17 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.55.17.103 with SMTP id b100mr9167216qkh.71.1431824897128; Sat, 16 May 2015 18:08:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.140.91.37 with HTTP; Sat, 16 May 2015 18:08:16 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <5557A9F9.1080408@phauna.org> References: <5550D8BE.6070207@electrum.org> <5557A9F9.1080408@phauna.org> Date: Sat, 16 May 2015 18:08:16 -0700 Message-ID: From: Aaron Voisine To: Owen Gunden Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1146918a5fbe8505163cb655 X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for sender-domain 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (voisine[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature X-Headers-End: 1Ytn42-0008VV-HR Cc: Bitcoin Development Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Long-term mining incentives X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 17 May 2015 01:08:23 -0000 --001a1146918a5fbe8505163cb655 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Sat, May 16, 2015 at 1:35 PM, Owen Gunden wrote: > > This strikes me as a leap. There are alternatives that still use bitcoin > as the unit of value, such as sidechains, offchain, etc. To say that > these are "not bitcoin" is misleading. > The only options available today and in the near future that I'm aware of are of the centralized custody variety, which is pretty bad in my opinion, but your point is taken. > > Are we sure that raising the block size is the only way to avoid > "unpredictable transaction failure"? If so, and it's as bad as you say > it is, aren't we screwed anyway when we inevitably start hitting the cap > (even if it's raised 10x or 20x)? And if that's the case, then don't we > do a disservice to users by continuing to pretend that we can make this > problem go away? > When we start bumping up against the block size limit, the transactions at the margins will experience failure in a way that will be unpredictable to current wallet software. We can slow blockchain growth by increasing fees alone, without introducing the additional cost of unpredictability around confirmation failure, which when it comes down to it is just another (extreme) way to keep usage low. Instead of fees and unpredictable confirmation, why not just have fees alone. A single, upfront, known cost. > > > On what do you base this? Gold has a very high cost of using (storage, > transport) and yet is perhaps the most widely accepted store of value. > I would argue that the reason gold is not the one world global currency that it once was is because of those costs. That's why people shifted over time to gold backed bank notes and eventually fiat. --001a1146918a5fbe8505163cb655 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Sat, May 16, 2015 at 1:35 PM, Owe= n Gunden <ogunden@phauna.org> wrote:
<= /div>

This strikes me as a leap. There are alternatives that still use bit= coin
as the unit of value, such as sidechains, offchain, etc. To say that
these are "not bitcoin" is misleading.

The only options available today and in t= he near future that I'm aware of are of the centralized custody variety= , which is pretty bad in my opinion, but your point is taken.
=C2= =A0

Are we = sure that raising the block size is the only way to avoid
"unpredictable transaction failure"? If so, and it's as bad a= s you say
it is, aren't we screwed anyway when we inevitably start hitting the ca= p
(even if it's raised 10x or 20x)? And if that's the case, then don&= #39;t we
do a disservice to users by continuing to pretend that we can make this
problem go away?

When we start bumping = up against the block size limit, the transactions at the margins will exper= ience failure in a way that will be unpredictable to current wallet softwar= e. We can slow blockchain growth by increasing fees alone, without introduc= ing the additional cost of unpredictability around confirmation failure, wh= ich when it comes down to it is just another (extreme) way to keep usage lo= w. Instead of fees and unpredictable confirmation, why not just have fees a= lone. A single, upfront, known cost.
=C2=A0


On what do you base this? Gold has a very high cost of using (storag= e,
transport) and yet is perhaps the most widely accepted store of value.
<= /blockquote>

I would argue that the reason gold is not t= he one world global currency that it once was is because of those costs. Th= at's why people shifted over time to gold backed bank notes and eventua= lly fiat.
--001a1146918a5fbe8505163cb655--