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 15634B43 for ; Tue, 10 Jan 2017 19:09:45 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-ua0-f193.google.com (mail-ua0-f193.google.com [209.85.217.193]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1AF4E1EF for ; Tue, 10 Jan 2017 19:09:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ua0-f193.google.com with SMTP id 96so47082426uaq.2 for ; Tue, 10 Jan 2017 11:09:43 -0800 (PST) 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; bh=BH/o9YF220daP2qHKxUqfneQZQfoamL7ydFKSABcXnU=; b=cRyahWjvvqdjIDvBDRn1bjgAvj6I1JqHlruUPU87CJqiH/OiMR+mTxWG0anI4a+RAt KUVR2jv3Gat/bupqfIUHQ3sgNh0Q/RQ0xdpspYyotE21ouhHWQqK8sIZyvIW1YTGtMSw xVgixDuU0FL4v3hzSFHVGA52S33oTyd8M+aESy7vosXnXmXHjZAYjhgkjZe/O7208DDD to1+83PrW8Foy9z+Hdzh1Jjj7AZ3T8uS4aLSuRzadFYS9BTLBc5uNoSgkSfbDrq+AT52 IrLZbLWpCkEt3vQBcewmjjg97QBkI9lUhu/i07yps1jdPGMqDNumCMcX3kKbcNrxetNe 7WYQ== 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; bh=BH/o9YF220daP2qHKxUqfneQZQfoamL7ydFKSABcXnU=; b=ApVGeDHvXmcyhhqAt+7P0V6st99rfM6aRHx4vz0iUw6lLymceDsG80CyLwY5xYk4oZ iwz0f7Thhov0yFS/MZ/F8kIOXg8e9dyKS87FnTAjMYHdk6WzAePQ+0fdHqzgx4A/KhlN zJOMYaTvvjY1X1c6ojW+YXZ2mXCxWgEPIEnBY5kAkWOfP4MUV0XfURdht61jQAukQ95C RpWYOUiPw9IQMIyfOSRWBAGwvjaRnCAJnzw8dJz/7lZBjfeRz9tJzlko1on2q/VOOHNX 6nDsHUu4a5bR0CHg0CXyEDecIu/EYwxpwafmpP7LAM2Tf7sf0l0moF1ZYpZ0gAQUjkyW kbwg== X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXIGhHaJeZaiqzxMfWznOHSxqfYkIe3DnLikRsb7OuldSnHdYo9prk0faJAuo/MH0ozshPdjo6pdFsXynQ== X-Received: by 10.176.6.167 with SMTP id g36mr2453032uag.97.1484075383286; Tue, 10 Jan 2017 11:09:43 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.103.49.77 with HTTP; Tue, 10 Jan 2017 11:09:42 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <127281C1AA02374F8AAD9EE04FAE878A02154E4E46@STUDMail1.muad.local> References: <127281C1AA02374F8AAD9EE04FAE878A02154E4E46@STUDMail1.muad.local> From: "t. khan" Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2017 14:09:42 -0500 Message-ID: To: Ryan J Martin , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c047d420a72400545c23aa5 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.7 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 autolearn=no version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP - Block75 - Historical and future projections (t. khan) 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: Tue, 10 Jan 2017 19:09:45 -0000 --94eb2c047d420a72400545c23aa5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 As Block75 maintains blocks at 75% full (average over time), it automatically stabilizes transaction fees at about the level they were in May/June 2016. It will even do so through changes in transaction size and volume caused by SegWit and Lightning. - t.k. On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 11:14 PM, Ryan J Martin via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > The adaptive/automatic block size notion has been around for a > while--- others would be better able to speak to why it hasn't gotten > traction. However my concern with something like that is that it doesn't > regard the optimal economic equilibrium for tx fees/size---not that the > current limit does either but the concern with an auto-adjusting size limit > that ignores this would be the potential to create unforeseen > externalities for miners/users. Miners may decide it is more profitable to > mine very small blocks to constrict supply and increase marginal fees and > with how centralized mining is, where a dozen pools have 85% hashrate, a > couple of pools could do this. Then on the other side, maybe the prisoner's > dilemma would hold and all miners would have minrelaytxfee set at zero and > users would push the blocks to larger and larger sizes causing higher and > higher latency and network issues. > Perhaps something like this could work (I can only speak to the > economic side anyway) but it would have to have some solid code that has a > social benefit model built in to adjust to an equilibrium that is able to > optimize---as in maximizes benefit/minimize cost for both sides via a > Marshallian surplus model--- for each size point. > To be clear, I'm not saying an auto-adjusting limit is unworkable > (again only from an economic standpoint), just that it would need to have > these considerations built in. > > -Ryan J. Martin > > > ________________________________________ > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2017 14:52:31 -0500 > From: "t. khan" > To: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion > > Subject: [bitcoin-dev] BIP - Block75 - Historical and future > projections > Message-ID: > gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Using daily average block size over the past year (source: > https://blockchain.info/charts/avg-block-size? > daysAverageString=14×pan=1year > ), here's how Block75 would have altered max block sizes: > > [image: Inline image 1] > > As of today, the max block size would be 1,135KB. > > Looking forward and using the last year's growth rate as a model: > > [image: Inline image 2] > > This shows the max block size one year from now would be 2,064KB, if > Block75 activated today. > > Of course, this is just an estimate, but even accounting for a substantial > increase in transactions in the last quarter of 2017 and changes brought > about by SegWit (hopefully) activating, Block75 alters the max size in such > a way that allows for growth, keeps blocks as small as possible, *and* > maintains transaction fees at a level similar to May/June 2016. > > If anyone has an alternate way to model future behavior, please run it > through the Block75 algorithm. > > Every 2016 blocks, do this: > > new max blocksize = x + (x * (AVERAGE_CAPACITY - TARGET_CAPACITY)) > > TARGET_CAPACITY = 0.75 //Block75's target of keeping blocks 75% full > AVERAGE_CAPACITY = average percentage full of the last 2016 blocks, as a > decimal > x = current max block size > > > Thanks, > > - t.k. > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: attachments/20170109/b0e0b713/attachment.html> > -------------- next part -------------- > A non-text attachment was scrubbed... > Name: Block75 2016.png > Type: image/png > Size: 32088 bytes > Desc: not available > URL: attachments/20170109/b0e0b713/attachment.png> > -------------- next part -------------- > A non-text attachment was scrubbed... > Name: Block75 2017.png > Type: image/png > Size: 33176 bytes > Desc: not available > URL: attachments/20170109/b0e0b713/attachment-0001.png> > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > > > End of bitcoin-dev Digest, Vol 20, Issue 21 > ******************************************* > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > --94eb2c047d420a72400545c23aa5 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
As Block75 maintains blocks at 75% full (average over time= ), it automatically stabilizes transaction fees at about the level they wer= e in May/June 2016. It will even do so through changes in transaction size = and volume caused by SegWit and Lightning.

- t.k.

On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 = at 11:14 PM, Ryan J Martin via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-de= v@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0The adaptive/automatic block size notion has b= een around for a while--- others would be better able to speak to why it ha= sn't gotten traction. However my concern with something like that is th= at it doesn't regard the optimal economic equilibrium for tx fees/size-= --not that the current limit does either but the concern with an auto-adjus= ting size limit that ignores this=C2=A0 would be the potential to create un= foreseen externalities for miners/users. Miners may decide it is more profi= table to mine very small blocks to constrict supply and increase marginal f= ees and with how centralized mining is, where a dozen pools have 85% hashra= te, a couple of pools could do this. Then on the other side, maybe the pris= oner's dilemma would hold and all miners would have minrelaytxfee set a= t zero and users would push the blocks to larger and larger sizes causing h= igher and higher latency and network issues.
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 Perhaps something like this could work (I can only speak to t= he economic side anyway) but it would have to have some solid code that has= a social benefit model built in to adjust to an equilibrium that is able t= o optimize---as in maximizes benefit/minimize cost for both sides via a Mar= shallian surplus model--- for each size point.
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0To be clear, I'm not saying an auto-adjusting limit= is unworkable (again only from an economic standpoint), just that it would= need to have these considerations built in.

-Ryan J. Martin


________________________________________

------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2017 14:52:31 -0500
From: "t. khan" <teekha= n42@gmail.com>
To: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: [bitcoin-dev] BIP - Block75 - Historical and future
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 projections
Message-ID:
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 <CAGCNRJpSV9zKxhVvqpMVPyFyXco_ABB9a7_ihaDKEKFPQ9v3sw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3D"utf-8"

Using daily average block size over the past year (source:
https://bl= ockchain.info/charts/avg-block-size?daysAverageString=3D14&ti= mespan=3D1year
), here's how Block75 would have altered max block sizes:

[image: Inline image 1]

As of today, the max block size would be 1,135KB.

Looking forward and using the last year's growth rate as a model:

[image: Inline image 2]

This shows the max block size one year from now would be 2,064KB, if
Block75 activated today.

Of course, this is just an estimate, but even accounting for a substantial<= br> increase in transactions in the last quarter of 2017 and changes brought about by SegWit (hopefully) activating, Block75 alters the max size in such=
a way that allows for growth, keeps blocks as small as possible, *and*
maintains transaction fees at a level similar to May/June 2016.

If anyone has an alternate way to model future behavior, please run it
through the Block75 algorithm.

Every 2016 blocks, do this:

new max blocksize =3D x + (x * (AVERAGE_CAPACITY - TARGET_CAPACITY))

TARGET_CAPACITY =3D 0.75=C2=A0 =C2=A0 //Block75's target of keeping blo= cks 75% full
AVERAGE_CAPACITY =3D average percentage full of the last 2016 blocks, as a<= br> decimal
x =3D current max block size


Thanks,

- t.k.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/a= ttachments/20170109/b0e0b713/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Block75 2016.png
Type: image/png
Size: 32088 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/at= tachments/20170109/b0e0b713/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Block75 2017.png
Type: image/png
Size: 33176 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20170109/b0e0b713/attachment-0001.png>

------------------------------

_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.= linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org= /mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev


End of bitcoin-dev Digest, Vol 20, Issue 21
*******************************************
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.= linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org= /mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

--94eb2c047d420a72400545c23aa5--