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 6B1944A7 for ; Thu, 30 Jul 2015 16:43:59 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-wi0-f174.google.com (mail-wi0-f174.google.com [209.85.212.174]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 839A6ED for ; Thu, 30 Jul 2015 16:43:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: by wicgb10 with SMTP id gb10so251839917wic.1 for ; Thu, 30 Jul 2015 09:43:57 -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=Ka75a2W8XLM5p87wKbFkHWAYo1o+6vopYtvZIUwV2O4=; b=yiP6H2d860L1Fc5crxPUeNcHfkOmVL2M3ziwOiCldSODN3jLRA2X9/ghfkwGhXtonS vwA8Tp3MYRmvUnyxXNwDM7HO3oLU1j7bX2EUqQNtzezLT50ifddfref/MSCeQRt96WJk EOtKoAAVZamz8lXHKdptETOxo/U2yzxe5EL+3KmLHRmEOLbExfsnCydZXmqHG6H/xIBr BArm+gVTyrnZ7/HckMMZ4WNpScxUry7lRTxp9y8jCF9MXHzFAQULoi8KNi4eXbkfMJVP Niiz7FNHwjHX6NSVNs2xp0PZ27B9x+AE/sJHHej5B2pYnMB56sef6JI4FT+oyP6rBUig LDkQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.194.209.167 with SMTP id mn7mr86329181wjc.64.1438274636987; Thu, 30 Jul 2015 09:43:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.27.171.138 with HTTP; Thu, 30 Jul 2015 09:43:56 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 12:43:56 -0400 Message-ID: From: Jameson Lopp To: Bryan Bishop Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b3a8954d3c524051c1a6885 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] 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: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 16:43:59 -0000 --047d7b3a8954d3c524051c1a6885 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 I fully expect that new layers will someday allow us to facilitate higher transaction volumes, though I'm concerned about the current state of the network and the fact that there are no concrete timelines for the rollout of aforementioned high volume networks. As for reasoning behind why users will still need to settle on-chain even with the existence of high volume networks, see these posts: http://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/message/34119233/ http://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/message/34113067/ Point being, the scalability proposals that are currently being developed are not magic bullets and still require the occasional on-chain settlement. Larger blocks will be necessary with or without the actual scalability enhancements. - Jameson On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 12:36 PM, Bryan Bishop wrote: > On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 11:23 AM, Jameson Lopp via bitcoin-dev < > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > >> Stated differently, if the cost or contention of using the network rises >> to the point of excluding the average user from making transactions, then >> they probably aren't going to care that they can run a node at trivial cost. > > > That's an interesting claim; so suppose you're living in a future where > transactions are summarizing millions or billions of other daily > transactions, possibly with merkle hashes. You think that because a user > can't individually broadcast his own personal transaction, that the user > would not be interested in verifying the presence of a summarizing > transaction in the blockchain? I'm just curious if you could elaborate on > this effect. Why would I need to see my individual transactions on the > network, but not see aggregate transactions that include my own? > > - Bryan > http://heybryan.org/ > 1 512 203 0507 > --047d7b3a8954d3c524051c1a6885 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I fully expect that new layers will someday allow us to fa= cilitate higher transaction volumes, though I'm concerned about the cur= rent state of the network and the fact that there are no concrete timelines= for the rollout of aforementioned high volume networks.

As for reasoning behind why users will still need to settle on-chain even = with the existence of high volume networks, see these posts:

=
http://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/message/34119233/


Point being, the scalability proposals= that are currently being developed are not magic bullets and still require= the occasional on-chain settlement. Larger blocks will be necessary with o= r without the actual scalability enhancements.

- J= ameson

On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 12:36 PM, Bryan Bishop <kanzure@gmail.com>= wrote:
On Thu, Jul 3= 0, 2015 at 11:23 AM, Jameson Lopp via bitcoin-dev <bit= coin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
Stated differently, if the cost or contention of using the = network rises to the point of excluding the average user from making transa= ctions, then they probably aren't going to care that they can run a nod= e at trivial cost.

That's an interesting c= laim; so suppose you're living in a future where transactions are summa= rizing millions or billions of other daily transactions, possibly with merk= le hashes. You think that because a user can't individually broadcast h= is own personal transaction, that the user would not be interested in verif= ying the presence of a summarizing transaction in the blockchain? I'm j= ust curious if you could elaborate on this effect. Why would I need to see = my individual transactions on the network, but not see aggregate transactio= ns that include my own?


--047d7b3a8954d3c524051c1a6885--