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 231D7B2F for ; Thu, 30 Mar 2017 17:16:45 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-vk0-f44.google.com (mail-vk0-f44.google.com [209.85.213.44]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AD9631BC for ; Thu, 30 Mar 2017 17:16:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-vk0-f44.google.com with SMTP id s68so62662999vke.3 for ; Thu, 30 Mar 2017 10:16:43 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=EOxExHQvsXJcBMTGXKr6qj/nyabo7d7Xvc3sSKBsdnw=; b=ubfxg8hcaep7kk2f8nznr3+Q7qZYmWHQsqYdst8/OmfHA8fBWzmO17VqQXyGbNZMO1 Q9f3Z5AWqkO5pO6H5/It0kswtJJ5S08Lx8iVc+EGsrcUZvuBEwrc4apt0eG2c3MEYlji p/a+MBoeF3EDDJwv5s8i6t+nIjZ1MNgfeXhxa3W9cK4P+GMnOYPDjVLy5Rd/OHU2FTSc OiKQulfjmDSPcWqf7TwdTjnY9S3TwiFTj00IrDXhw3IhSkTkLTuNNMljKpC+aUfeopuO U+YS7WPcyw2Hp81c/T/kwA9jDWa5kL2MPM93HtzKdZmsbwg5OrZcKgEy2trxuFwIInAx ebJA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=EOxExHQvsXJcBMTGXKr6qj/nyabo7d7Xvc3sSKBsdnw=; b=SDhWFqn08bi3iF412GgSEDrIzU/4N1RaHNgrl2Z5jplFUlACiSe/ofX0B5Cu113E/5 nSxpO4tlfLpek43gN5iAXi9B90ntEK4IHtFFZOc8PXDBBxUBDO1RFieyHv7umHl84WnI 4il1NRqt3g7JoVdLuN6pysa24GumdFdzZxBbyCvO5z6GT3wDDZJdsKa27XWll4gpJ6ss PSTMafgxDP2Byh5aAIB1//aEFmLrcooKqxnlj0SX+Y5BNd6WQyvLzDQY54DUlnVEoez5 NP7BdbqW4TAUaf4jVYuu5vWH4E056zdJCVzDRi5rQFDwntxmdFOdiJHZ6PL6hAXP4KR5 N9Ag== X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H0yxR8dRgPfQs7jy/jxM51dBLgTXtwX1u1Q+OXsRHQwJGia36gQ0jLWWxX5OfNUrSCRpHL7K9PydFEv5g== X-Received: by 10.31.175.74 with SMTP id y71mr422817vke.34.1490894202590; Thu, 30 Mar 2017 10:16:42 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.31.157.143 with HTTP; Thu, 30 Mar 2017 10:16:41 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: Jared Lee Richardson Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2017 10:16:41 -0700 Message-ID: To: Luv Khemani Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a114410fc57dfab054bf5db3e X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT,FREEMAIL_FROM, HTML_MESSAGE, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM autolearn=no version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 30 Mar 2017 21:03:21 +0000 Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Hard fork proposal from last week's meeting X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2017 17:16:45 -0000 --001a114410fc57dfab054bf5db3e Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > You are only looking at technical aspects and missing the political aspect. Nodes don't do politics. People do, and politics is a lot larger with a lot more moving parts than just node operation. > full nodes protect the user from the change of any properties of Bitcoin which they do not agree with. Full nodes protect from nothing if the chain they attempt to use is nonfunctional. > The ability to retain this power for users is of prime importance and is arguably what gives Bitcoin most of it's value > Any increase in the cost to run a full node is an increase in cost to maintain monetary sovereignty This power is far more complicated than just nodes. You're implying that node operation == political participation. Node operation is only a very small part of the grand picture of the bitcoin balance of power. > The ability for a user to run a node is what keeps the miners honest and prevents them from rewriting any of Bitcoin's rules. No, it isn't. Nodes disagreeing with miners is necessary but not sufficient to prevent that. Nodes can't utilize a nonfunctional chain, nor can they utilize a coin with no exchanges. > What makes Bitcoin uncensorable Only two things - 1. Node propagation being strong enough that a target node can't be surrounded by attacker nodes (or so that attacker nodes can't segment honest nodes), and 2. Miners being distributed in enough countries and locations to avoid any single outside attacker group from having enough leverage to prevent transaction inclusion, and miners also having enough incentives(philosophical or economic) to refuse to collude towards transaction exclusion. Being able to run a node yourself has no real effect on either of the two. Either we have enough nodes that an attacker can't segment the network or we don't. > What gives confidence that the 21 million limit will be upheld What you're describing would result in a fork war. The opposition to this would widespread and preventing an attempt relies upon mutual destruction. If users refused to get on board, exchanges would follow users. If miners refused to get on board, the attempt would be equally dead in the water. It would require a majority of users, businesses and miners to change the limit; Doing so without an overwhelming majority(90% at least) would still result in a contentious fork that punished both sides(in price, confidence, adoption, and possibly chain or node attacks) for refusing to agree. Nodes have absolutely no say in the matter if they can't segment the network, and even if they could their impact could be repaired. Users != Nodes. > What makes transactions irreversible Err, this makes me worry that you don't understand how blockchains work... This is because miners are severely punished for attempting to mine on anything but the longest chain. Nodes have absolutely no say in the matter, they always follow the longest chain unless a hardfork was applied. If the hardfork has overwhelming consensus, i.e. stopping a 51% attack, then the attack would be handled. If the hardfork did not have overwhelming consensus it would result in another fork war requiring users, businesses, and miners to actively decide which to support and how, and once again would involve mutual destruction on both forks. Nodes don't decide any of these things. Nodes follow the longest chain, and have no practical choices in the matter. Users not running nodes doesn't diminish their power - Mutual destruction comes from the market forces on the exchanges, and they could give a rats ass whether you run a node or not. > The market is not storing 10s of billions of dollars in Bitcoin despite all it's risks because it is useful for everyday transactions, that is a solved problem in every part of the world (Cash/Visa/etc..). This is just the "bitcoin is gold" argument. Bitcoin is not gold. For someone not already a believer, Bitcoin is a risky, speculative investment into a promising future technology, whereas gold is a stable physical asset with 4,000 years of acceptance history that has the same value in nearly every city on the planet. Bitcoin is difficult to purchase and difficult to find someone to exchange for goods or services. Literally the only reason we have 10s of billions of dollars of value is because speculation, which includes nearly all Bitcoin users/holders and almost all businesses and miners. While Bitcoin borrows useful features from gold, it has more possible uses, including uses that were never possible before Bitcoin existed, and we believe that gives it huge potential. The ability of other systems to do transactions, like visa or cash, come with the limitations of those systems. Bitcoin was designed to break those limitations and STILL provide the ability to do transactions. We might all agree Bitcoin isn't going to ever solve the microtransaction problem, at least not on-chain, but saying Bitcoin doesn't need utility is just foolish. Gold doesn't need utility, gold has 4,000 years of history. We don't. > Even if we fork to 2MB, 5MB, 10MB. It is irrelevant in the larger picture, transaction capacity will still be too low for global usage in the medium-long term. Which is why it needs to be a formula or a continuous process, not a single number. > Even if it fails to live up to the hype, you should not discount the market innovating solutions when there is money to be made. That's like saying it would be better to do nothing so someone else solves our problem for us than it would be for us to do what we can to solve it ourselves. Someone else solving our problem may very well be Ethereum, and "solving it for us" is pulling Bitcoin investments, users and nodes away into Ethereum. > The additional capacity from blocksize increases are linear improvements with very large systemic costs compared with the userbase and usage which is growing exponentially. The capacity increases do not have to be linear. The increases in utility are linear with blocksize increases, but so are the costs. There's no reason those blocksize increases can't be tied to or related to usage increases, so long as the concerns about having too few nodes (or too few fees) for security are handled. On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 12:11 AM, Luv Khemani wrote: > > >> If home users are not running their own full nodes, then home users > have to trust and rely on other, more powerful nodes to represent them. Of > course, the more powerful nodes, simply by nature of having more power, are > going to have different opinions and objectives from the users. > > >I think you're conflating mining with node operation here. Node users > only power is to block the propagation of certain things. Since miners > also have a node endpoint, they can cut the node users out of the equation > by linking with eachother directly - something they already do out of > practicality for propagation. Node users do not have the power to > arbitrate consensus, that is why we have blocks and PoW. > > You are only looking at technical aspects and missing the political aspect. > > Node users decide what a Bitcoin is. It matters not how much hash power is > behind a inflationary supply chain fork, full nodes protect the user from > the change of any properties of Bitcoin which they do not agree with. The > ability to retain this power for users is of prime importance and is > arguably what gives Bitcoin most of it's value. Any increase in the cost to > run a full node is an increase in cost to maintain monetary sovereignty. > The ability for a user to run a node is what keeps the miners honest and > prevents them from rewriting any of Bitcoin's rules. > > If it's still difficult to grasp the above paragraph, ask yourself the > following questions, > - What makes Bitcoin uncensorable > - What gives confidence that the 21 million limit will be upheld > - What makes transactions irreversible > - If hashpower was king as you make it to be, why havn't miners making up > majority hashrate who want bigger blocks been able to change the blocksize? > > The market is not storing 10s of billions of dollars in Bitcoin despite > all it's risks because it is useful for everyday transactions, that is a > solved problem in every part of the world (Cash/Visa/etc..). > > Having said that, i fully empathise with your view that increasing > transaction fees might allow competitors to gain marketshare for low value > use cases. By all means, we should look into ways of solving the problem. > But all these debates around blocksize is a total waste of time. Even if we > fork to 2MB, 5MB, 10MB. It is irrelevant in the larger picture, transaction > capacity will still be too low for global usage in the medium-long term. > The additional capacity from blocksize increases are linear improvements > with very large systemic costs compared with the userbase and usage which > is growing exponentially. Lightning potentially offers a couple or orders > of magnitude of scaling and will make blocksize a non-issue for years to > come. Even if it fails to live up to the hype, you should not discount the > market innovating solutions when there is money to be made. > > --001a114410fc57dfab054bf5db3e Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>=C2=A0You are only loo= king at technical aspects and missing the political aspect.

Nodes do= n't do politics.=C2=A0 People do, and politics is a lot larger with a l= ot more moving parts than just node operation.

>= =C2=A0full nodes protect the user fr= om the change of any properties of Bitcoin which they do not agree with.
Full nodes protect from nothing if the chain they attempt to use is no= nfunctional.

>=C2=A0The ability to retain this power for users is of prime impor= tance and is arguably what gives Bitcoin most of it's value
<= span style=3D"color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:"comic sans ms",fantas= y,cursive;font-size:13.3333px">>=C2=A0Any increase in the cost to run a full node is an increase in cost to = maintain monetary sovereignty
This power is far more complicated than just nodes.=C2=A0 You're imply= ing that node operation =3D=3D political participation.=C2=A0 Node operatio= n is only a very small part of the grand picture of the bitcoin balance of = power.

>=C2=A0The ability for a user to run a node is what kee= ps the miners honest and prevents them from rewriting any of Bitcoin's = rules.

No, it isn't.=C2= =A0 Nodes disagreeing with miners is necessary but not sufficient to preven= t that.=C2=A0 Nodes can't utilize a nonfunctional chain, nor can they u= tilize a coin with no exchanges.

> What makes Bitcoin uncensorable

Only two things - 1. Node propagation being strong enough that = a target node can't be surrounded by attacker nodes (or so that attacke= r nodes can't segment honest nodes), and 2. Miners being distributed in= enough countries and locations to avoid any single outside attacker group = from having enough leverage to prevent transaction inclusion, and miners al= so having enough incentives(philosophical or economic) to refuse to collude= towards transaction exclusion.

Being able to r= un a node yourself has no real effect on either of the two.=C2=A0 Either we= have enough nodes that an attacker can't segment the network or we don= 't.

<= div>> What gives confidence that the 21 million limit will be upheld<= span style=3D"color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:"comic sans ms",fantas= y,cursive;font-size:13.3333px">

What you're describing would res= ult in a fork war.=C2=A0 The opposition to this would widespread and preven= ting an attempt relies upon mutual destruction.=C2=A0 If users refused to g= et on board, exchanges would follow users.=C2=A0 If miners refused to get o= n board, the attempt would be equally dead in the water.=C2=A0 It would req= uire a majority of users, businesses and miners to change the limit; Doing = so without an overwhelming majority(90% at least) would still result in a c= ontentious fork that punished both sides(in price, confidence, adoption, an= d possibly chain or node attacks) for refusing to agree.

Nodes have = absolutely no say in the matter if they can't segment the network, and = even if they could their impact could be repaired.=C2=A0 Users !=3D Nodes.<= /span>

>=C2=A0Nodes don't decide any of these things.=C2=A0 Nodes follow the l= ongest chain, and have no practical choices in the matter.=C2=A0 Users not = running nodes doesn't diminish their power - Mutual destruction comes f= rom the market forces on the exchanges, and they could give a rats ass whet= her you run a node or not.

>=C2=A0The market is not storing 10s of billions of dollars in Bitcoin des= pite all it's risks=C2=A0because it is useful for everyday transactions= , that is a solved problem in every part of the world (Cash/Visa/etc..).=C2= =A0

This is just the "bitcoin is gold" argument.=C2=A0 Bit= coin is not gold. =C2=A0For someone= not already a believer, Bitcoin is a risky, speculative investment into a = promising future technology, wherea= s gold is a stable physical asset with 4,000 years of acceptance history th= at has the same value in nearly every city on the planet.=C2=A0 Bitcoin is = difficult to purchase and difficult to find someone to exchange for goods o= r services.=C2=A0 Literally the only reason we have 10s of billions of doll= ars of value is because speculation, which includes nearly all Bitcoin user= s/holders and almost all businesses and miners.=C2=A0 While Bitcoin borrows= useful features from gold, it has more possible uses, including uses that = were never possible before Bitcoin existed, and we believe that gives it hu= ge potential.

The ability of other systems to do transactions, like = visa or cash, come with the limitations of those systems.=C2=A0 Bitcoin was= designed to break those limitations and STILL provide the ability to do tr= ansactions.=C2=A0 We might all agree Bitcoin isn't going to ever solve = the microtransaction problem, at least not on-chain, but saying Bitcoin doe= sn't need utility is just foolish.=C2=A0 Gold doesn't need utility,= gold has 4,000 years of history.=C2=A0 We don't.

>=C2=A0Even if we fork t= o 2MB, 5MB, 10MB. It is irrelevant in the larger picture, transaction capac= ity will still be too low for global usage in the medium-long term.=C2=A0
Which is why it needs to be a= formula or a continuous process, not a single number.

>=C2=A0Even if it fails to live up to the hype= , you should not discount the market innovating solutions when there is mon= ey to be made.

That's like saying it would be better to do nothi= ng so someone else solves our problem for us than it would be for us to do = what we can to solve it ourselves.=C2=A0 Someone else solving our problem m= ay very well be Ethereum, and "solving it for us" is pulling Bitc= oin investments, users and nodes away into Ethereum.

>=C2=A0The additional capacity from blocksize in= creases are linear improvements with very large systemic=C2=A0costs compare= d with the userbase and usage which is growing exponentially.

The ca= pacity increases do not have to be linear.=C2=A0 The increases in utility a= re linear with blocksize increases, but so are the costs.=C2=A0 There's= no reason those blocksize increases can't be tied to or related to usa= ge increases, so long as the concerns about having too few nodes (or too fe= w fees) for security are handled.



On Thu,= Mar 30, 2017 at 12:11 AM, Luv Khemani <luvb@hotmail.com> wro= te:


>>=C2=A0If home users are n= ot running their own full nodes, then home users have to trust and rely on = other, more powerful nodes to represent them. Of course, the more powerful nodes, simply by nature of having more power, ar= e going to have different opinions and objectives from the users.

>I think you're conflating mining with node operation here.=C2=A0 No= de users only power is to block the propagation of certain things.=C2=A0 Si= nce miners also have a node endpoint, they can cut the node users out of th= e equation by linking with eachother directly - something they already do out of practicality for propagation.=C2=A0 Node users do n= ot have the power to arbitrate consensus, that is why we have blocks and Po= W.

You are only l= ooking at technical aspects and missing the political aspect.

Node users decide wha= t a Bitcoin is. It matters not how much hash=C2=A0power is behind a inflati= onary supply chain=C2=A0fork, full nodes protect the user from the change of any properties of Bitcoin which they do not ag= ree with. The ability to retain this power for users is of prime importance= and is arguably what gives Bitcoin most of it's value. Any increase in= the cost to run a full node is an increase in cost to maintain monetary sovereignty. The ability for a user to run a = node is what keeps the miners honest and prevents them from rewriting any o= f Bitcoin's rules.

If it's still dif= ficult to grasp the above paragraph, ask yourself the following questions,<= /span>
- What makes Bitcoin = uncensorable
- What gives confiden= ce that the 21 million limit will be upheld
- What makes transact= ions irreversible
- If hashpower was king as you make it to be, why havn't=C2=A0miners making up majority hashrate who want bigger bl= ocks been able to change the blocksize?

The market is not stori= ng 10s of billions of dollars in Bitcoin despite all it's risks=C2=A0be= cause it is useful for everyday transactions, that is a solved problem in every part of the world (Cash/Visa/etc..).=C2= =A0

Having said that, i ful= ly empathise with your view that increasing transaction fees might allow co= mpetitors to gain marketshare for low value use cases. By all means, we should look into ways of=C2=A0solvin= g the problem. But all these=C2=A0debates around blocksize is a total waste= of time. Even if we fork to 2MB, 5MB, 10MB. It is irrelevant in the larger= picture, transaction capacity will still be too low for global usage in the medium-long term. The additional capaci= ty from blocksize increases are linear improvements with very large systemi= c=C2=A0costs compared with the userbase and usage which is growing exponent= ially. Lightning potentially offers a couple or orders of magnitude of scaling and will make blocksize a non-iss= ue for years to come. Even if it fails to live up to the hype, you should n= ot discount the market innovating solutions when there is money to be made.=


--001a114410fc57dfab054bf5db3e--