public inbox for bitcoindev@googlegroups.com
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Washington Sanchez <washington.sanchez@gmail.com>
To: Adam Back <adam@cypherspace.org>
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Dynamic limit to the block size - BIP draft discussion
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2015 00:02:51 +1000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAG0bcYzBCsg9xNLGmu4S=PEPjtbd2iBLH52ryswbkRM23OqquA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CALqxMTERUFEFgJ4quz2dWLRw9fD3DkBp-6RO4cuvdBGV2MSyhw@mail.gmail.com>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3656 bytes --]

>
> The maximum block-size is one that can be filled at zero-cost by
> miners, and so allows some kinds of amplification of selfish-mining
> related attacks


A selfish mining attack would have to be performed for at least 2000 blocks
over a period of 4 weeks in order to achieve a meager 10% increase in the
block size.

If there goal is to simply drive up fees to gain acceptance into the block,
we're in exactly the same position we are in today (as in nothing stops a
miner from doing this).
If the goal is to increase the block size to push out smaller miners,
they'll have to perform this attack over the course of years and destroy
any economic incentives they have for mining in the first place.

 why give this power up to a subsection of the ecosystem in order to make
> it easier to change or game


Well this same could be said for developers trying to predict what the
appropriate block size should be over the next 20 years... it's a hallmark
to a group of bankers trying to predict the appropriate interest rate for
the entire economy. Just as it is impossible to predict the appropriate
hash rate to secure the network, so it goes for the block size. Both need
to adjust dynamically to the scale/adoption of the network.

On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 11:13 PM, Adam Back <adam@cypherspace.org> wrote:

> The maximum block-size is one that can be filled at zero-cost by
> miners, and so allows some kinds of amplification of selfish-mining
> related attacks.
>
> Adam
>
>
> On 8 September 2015 at 13:28, Ivan Brightly via bitcoin-dev
> <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > This is true, but miners already control block size through soft caps.
> > Miners are fully capable of producing smaller blocks regardless of the
> max
> > block limit, with or without collusion. Arguably, there is no need to
> ever
> > reduce the max block size unless technology advances for some reason
> reverse
> > course - aka, WW3 takes a toll on the internet and the average bandwidth
> > available halves. The likelihood of significant technology contraction in
> > the near future seems rather unlikely and is more broadly problematic for
> > society than bitcoin specifically.
> >
> > The only reason for reducing the max block limit other than technology
> > availability is if you think that this is what will produce the fee
> market,
> > which is back to an economic discussion - not a technology scaling
> > discussion.
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 4:49 AM, Btc Drak via bitcoin-dev
> > <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> > but allow meaningful relief to transaction volume pressure in response
> >> > to true market demand
> >>
> >> If blocksize can only increase then it's like a market that only goes
> >> up which is unrealistic. Transaction will volume ebb and flow
> >> significantly. Some people have been looking at transaction volume
> >> charts over time and all they can see is an exponential curve which
> >> they think will go on forever, yet nothing goes up forever and it will
> >> go through significant trend cycles (like everything does). If you
> >> dont want to hurt the fee market, the blocksize has to be elastic and
> >> allow contraction as well as expansion.
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > bitcoin-dev mailing list
> > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
> >
>



-- 
-------------------------------------------
*Dr Washington Y. Sanchez <http://onename.com/drwasho>*
Co-founder, OB1 <http://ob1.io>
Core developer of OpenBazaar <https://openbazaar.org>
@drwasho <https://twitter.com/drwasho>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 5596 bytes --]

  parent reply	other threads:[~2015-09-08 14:02 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2015-09-08  7:45 [bitcoin-dev] Dynamic limit to the block size - BIP draft discussion Washington Sanchez
2015-09-08  8:49 ` Btc Drak
2015-09-08 12:28   ` Ivan Brightly
2015-09-08 13:13     ` Adam Back
2015-09-08 13:52       ` Ivan Brightly
2015-09-08 14:02       ` Washington Sanchez [this message]
2015-09-08 14:18         ` Adam Back
2015-09-08 15:10           ` Washington Sanchez
2015-09-08 16:46             ` Andrew Johnson
2015-09-08 17:04             ` Gavin Andresen
2015-09-08 23:11               ` Washington Sanchez
2015-09-09 13:10                 ` Washington Sanchez

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to='CAG0bcYzBCsg9xNLGmu4S=PEPjtbd2iBLH52ryswbkRM23OqquA@mail.gmail.com' \
    --to=washington.sanchez@gmail.com \
    --cc=adam@cypherspace.org \
    --cc=bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox