From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1YqqUM-0002KY-Ve for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 08 May 2015 22:11:22 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.212.178 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.212.178; envelope-from=dgomez1092@gmail.com; helo=mail-wi0-f178.google.com; Received: from mail-wi0-f178.google.com ([209.85.212.178]) by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1YqqUK-0003n3-1j for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 08 May 2015 22:11:22 +0000 Received: by wief7 with SMTP id f7so45674420wie.0 for ; Fri, 08 May 2015 15:11:14 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.194.200.42 with SMTP id jp10mr290401wjc.66.1431123074039; Fri, 08 May 2015 15:11:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.28.144.68 with HTTP; Fri, 8 May 2015 15:11:13 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Fri, 8 May 2015 15:11:13 -0700 Message-ID: From: Damian Gomez To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bb0427275479f0515994e07 X-Spam-Score: -0.3 (/) 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 (dgomez1092[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 0.2 FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT Envelope-from freemail username ends in digit (dgomez1092[at]gmail.com) 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: 1YqqUK-0003n3-1j Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Bitcoin-development Digest, Vol 48, Issue 41 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: Fri, 08 May 2015 22:11:23 -0000 --047d7bb0427275479f0515994e07 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Well zombie txns aside, I expect this to be resolved w/ a client side implementation using a Merkle-Winternitz OTS in order to prevent the loss of fee structure theougth the implementation of a this security hash that eill alloow for a one-wya transaction to conitnue, according to the TESLA protocol. We can then tally what is needed to compute tteh number of bit desginated for teh completion og the client-side signature if discussin the construcitons of a a DH key (instead of the BIP X509 protocol) On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 2:08 PM, < bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net> wrote: > Send Bitcoin-development mailing list submissions to > bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net > > You can reach the person managing the list at > bitcoin-development-owner@lists.sourceforge.net > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of Bitcoin-development digest..." > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: Block Size Increase (Mark Friedenbach) > 2. Softfork signaling improvements (Douglas Roark) > 3. Re: Block Size Increase (Mark Friedenbach) > 4. Re: Block Size Increase (Raystonn) (Damian Gomez) > 5. Re: Block Size Increase (Raystonn) > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Mark Friedenbach > To: Raystonn > Cc: Bitcoin Development > Date: Fri, 8 May 2015 13:55:30 -0700 > Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Block Size Increase > The problems with that are larger than time being unreliable. It is no > longer reorg-safe as transactions can expire in the course of a reorg and > any transaction built on the now expired transaction is invalidated. > > On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 1:51 PM, Raystonn wrote: > >> Replace by fee is what I was referencing. End-users interpret the old >> transaction as expired. Hence the nomenclature. An alternative is a new >> feature that operates in the reverse of time lock, expiring a transaction >> after a specific time. But time is a bit unreliable in the blockchain >> > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Douglas Roark > To: Bitcoin Dev > Cc: > Date: Fri, 8 May 2015 15:27:26 -0400 > Subject: [Bitcoin-development] Softfork signaling improvements > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA512 > > Hello. I've seen Greg make a couple of posts online > (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1033396.msg11155302#msg11155302 > is one such example) where he has mentioned that Pieter has a new > proposal for allowing multiple softforks to be deployed at the same > time. As discussed in the thread I linked, the idea seems simple > enough. Still, I'm curious if the actual proposal has been posted > anywhere. I spent a few minutes searching the usual suspects (this > mailing list, Reddit, Bitcointalk, IRC logs, BIPs) and can't find > anything. > > Thanks. > > - --- > Douglas Roark > Senior Developer > Armory Technologies, Inc. > doug@bitcoinarmory.com > PGP key ID: 92ADC0D7 > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.22 (Darwin) > Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org > > iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJVTQ4eAAoJEGybVGGSrcDX8eMQAOQiDA7an+qZBqDfVIwEzY2C > SxOVxswwxAyTtZNM/Nm+8MTq77hF8+3j/C3bUbDW6wCu4QxBYA/uiCGTf44dj6WX > 7aiXg1o9C4LfPcuUngcMI0H5ixOUxnbqUdmpNdoIvy4did2dVs9fAmOPEoSVUm72 > 6dMLGrtlPN0jcLX6pJd12Dy3laKxd0AP72wi6SivH6i8v8rLb940EuBS3hIkuZG0 > vnR5MXMIEd0rkWesr8hn6oTs/k8t4zgts7cgIrA7rU3wJq0qaHBa8uASUxwHKDjD > KmDwaigvOGN6XqitqokCUlqjoxvwpimCjb3Uv5Pkxn8+dwue9F/IggRXUSuifJRn > UEZT2F8fwhiluldz3sRaNtLOpCoKfPC+YYv7kvGySgqagtNJFHoFhbeQM0S3yjRn > Ceh1xK9sOjrxw/my0jwpjJkqlhvQtVG15OsNWDzZ+eWa56kghnSgLkFO+T4G6IxB > EUOcAYjJkLbg5ssjgyhvDOvGqft+2e4MNlB01e1ZQr4whQH4TdRkd66A4WDNB+0g > LBqVhAc2C8L3g046mhZmC33SuOSxxm8shlxZvYLHU2HrnUFg9NkkXi1Ub7agMSck > TTkLbMx17AvOXkKH0v1L20kWoWAp9LfRGdD+qnY8svJkaUuVtgDurpcwEk40WwEZ > caYBw+8bdLpKZwqbA1DL > =ayhE > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Mark Friedenbach > To: "Raystonn ." > Cc: Bitcoin Development > Date: Fri, 8 May 2015 13:40:50 -0700 > Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Block Size Increase > Transactions don't expire. But if the wallet is online, it can > periodically choose to release an already created transaction with a higher > fee. This requires replace-by-fee to be sufficiently deployed, however. > > On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 1:38 PM, Raystonn . wrote: > >> I have a proposal for wallets such as yours. How about creating all >> transactions with an expiration time starting with a low fee, then >> replacing with new transactions that have a higher fee as time passes. >> Users can pick the fee curve they desire based on the transaction priority >> they want to advertise to the network. Users set the priority in the >> wallet, and the wallet software translates it to a specific fee curve used >> in the series of expiring transactions. In this manner, transactions are >> never left hanging for days, and probably not even for hours. >> >> -Raystonn >> On 8 May 2015 1:17 pm, Aaron Voisine wrote: >> >> As the author of a popular SPV wallet, I wanted to weigh in, in support >> of the Gavin's 20Mb block proposal. >> >> The best argument I've heard against raising the limit is that we need >> fee pressure. I agree that fee pressure is the right way to economize on >> scarce resources. Placing hard limits on block size however is an >> incredibly disruptive way to go about this, and will severely negatively >> impact users' experience. >> >> When users pay too low a fee, they should: >> >> 1) See immediate failure as they do now with fees that fail to propagate. >> >> 2) If the fee lower than it should be but not terminal, they should see >> degraded performance, long delays in confirmation, but eventual success. >> This will encourage them to pay higher fees in future. >> >> The worst of all worlds would be to have transactions propagate, hang in >> limbo for days, and then fail. This is the most important scenario to >> avoid. Increasing the 1Mb block size limit I think is the simplest way to >> avoid this least desirable scenario for the immediate future. >> >> We can play around with improved transaction selection for blocks and >> encourage miners to adopt it to discourage low fees and create fee >> pressure. These could involve hybrid priority/fee selection so low fee >> transactions see degraded performance instead of failure. This would be the >> conservative low risk approach. >> >> Aaron Voisine >> co-founder and CEO >> breadwallet.com >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> One dashboard for servers and applications across Physical-Virtual-Cloud >> Widest out-of-the-box monitoring support with 50+ applications >> Performance metrics, stats and reports that give you Actionable Insights >> Deep dive visibility with transaction tracing using APM Insight. >> http://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/290420510;117567292;y >> _______________________________________________ >> Bitcoin-development mailing list >> Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development >> >> > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Damian Gomez > To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net > Cc: > Date: Fri, 8 May 2015 14:04:10 -0700 > Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Block Size Increase (Raystonn) > Hello, > > I was reading some of the thread but can't say I read the entire thing. > > I think that it is realistic to cinsider a nlock sixe of 20MB for any > block txn to occur. THis is an enormous amount of data (relatively for a > netwkrk) in which the avergage rate of 10tps over 10 miniutes would allow > for fewasible transformation of data at this curent point in time. > > Though I do not see what extra hash information would be stored in the > overall ecosystem as we begin to describe what the scripts that are > atacrhed tp the blockchain would carry, > > I'd therefore think that for the remainder of this year that it is > possible to have a block chain within 200 - 300 bytes that is more > charatereistic of some feasible attempts at attaching nuanced data in order > to keep propliifc the blockchain but have these identifiers be integral > OPSIg of the the entiore block. THe reasoning behind this has to do with > encryption standards that can be added toe a chain such as th DH algoritnm > keys that would allow for a higher integrity level withinin the system as > it is. Cutrent;y tyh prootocl oomnly controls for the amount of > transactions through if TxnOut script and the publin key coming form teh > lcoation of the proof-of-work. Form this then I think that a rate of higher > than then current standard of 92bytes allows for GPUS ie CUDA to perfirm > its standard operations of 1216 flops in rde rto mechanize a new > personal identity within the chain that also attaches an encrypted instance > of a further categorical variable that we can prsribved to it. > > I think with the current BIP7 prootclol for transactions there is an area > of vulnerability for man-in-the-middle attacks upon request of bitcin to > any merchant as is. It would contraidct the security of the bitcoin if it > was intereceptefd iand not allowed to reach tthe payment network or if the > hash was reveresed in orfr to change the value it had. Therefore the > current best fit block size today is between 200 - 300 bytws (depending on > how exciteed we get) > > > > Thanks for letting me join the conversation > I welcomes any vhalleneged and will reply with more research as i figure > out what problems are revealed in my current formation of thoughts (sorry > for the errors but i am just trying to move forward ---> THE DELRERT KEY > LITERALLY PREVENTS IT ) > > > _Damian > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Raystonn > To: Mark Friedenbach > Cc: Bitcoin Development > Date: Fri, 8 May 2015 14:01:28 -0700 > Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Block Size Increase > > Replace by fee is the better approach. It will ultimately replace zombie > transactions (due to insufficient fee) with potentially much higher fees as > the feature takes hold in wallets throughout the network, and fee > competition increases. However, this does not fix the problem of low tps. > In fact, as blocks fill it could make the problem worse. This feature > means more transactions after all. So I would expect huge fee spikes, or a > return to zombie transactions if fee caps are implemented by wallets. > > -Raystonn > On 8 May 2015 1:55 pm, Mark Friedenbach wrote: > > The problems with that are larger than time being unreliable. It is no > longer reorg-safe as transactions can expire in the course of a reorg and > any transaction built on the now expired transaction is invalidated. > > On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 1:51 PM, Raystonn wrote: > > Replace by fee is what I was referencing. End-users interpret the old > transaction as expired. Hence the nomenclature. An alternative is a new > feature that operates in the reverse of time lock, expiring a transaction > after a specific time. But time is a bit unreliable in the blockchain > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > One dashboard for servers and applications across Physical-Virtual-Cloud > Widest out-of-the-box monitoring support with 50+ applications > Performance metrics, stats and reports that give you Actionable Insights > Deep dive visibility with transaction tracing using APM Insight. > http://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/290420510;117567292;y > _______________________________________________ > Bitcoin-development mailing list > Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development > > --047d7bb0427275479f0515994e07 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Well zombie txns aside, =C2=A0I expect this to be= resolved w/ a client side implementation using a Merkle-Winternitz OTS in = order to prevent the loss of fee structure theougth the implementation of a= this security hash that eill alloow for a one-wya transaction to conitnue,= according to the TESLA protocol. =C2=A0

We can th= en tally what is needed to compute tteh number of bit desginated for teh co= mpletion og the client-side signature if discussin the construcitons of a a= DH key (instead of the BIP X509 protocol) =C2=A0

=



On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 2:08 PM, &= lt;bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net> wrote:
Send Bitcoin-development mail= ing list submissions to
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 https://lists.sourceforge.n= et/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 bitcoin-development-request@lists.s= ourceforge.net

You can reach the person managing the list at
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 bitcoin-development-owner@lists.sourc= eforge.net

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Bitcoin-development digest..."

Today's Topics:

=C2=A0 =C2=A01. Re: Block Size Increase (Mark Friedenbach)
=C2=A0 =C2=A02. Softfork signaling improvements (Douglas Roark)
=C2=A0 =C2=A03. Re: Block Size Increase (Mark Friedenbach)
=C2=A0 =C2=A04. Re: Block Size Increase (Raystonn) (Damian Gomez)
=C2=A0 =C2=A05. Re: Block Size Increase (Raystonn)


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From:=C2=A0Mark Friedenb= ach <mark@frie= denbach.org>
To:=C2=A0Raystonn <raystonn@hotmail.com>
Cc:=C2=A0Bitcoi= n Development <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
= Date:=C2=A0Fri, 8 May 2015 13:55:30 -0700
Subject:=C2=A0Re: [Bitcoin-dev= elopment] Block Size Increase
The problems with that ar= e larger than time being unreliable. It is no longer reorg-safe as transact= ions can expire in the course of a reorg and any transaction built on the n= ow expired transaction is invalidated.
<= br>
On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 1:51 PM, Raystonn <raystonn@hotmail.com> wrote:
Replace by fee is what I was referencing.=C2=A0 End-users interpret the = old transaction as expired.=C2=A0 Hence the nomenclature.=C2=A0 An alternat= ive is a new feature that operates in the reverse of time lock, expiring a = transaction after a specific time.=C2=A0 But time is a bit unreliable in th= e blockchain


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From:=C2=A0Douglas Roark= <doug@bitco= inarmory.com>
To:=C2=A0Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@li= sts.sourceforge.net>
Cc:=C2=A0
Date:=C2=A0Fri, 8 May 2015 15:2= 7:26 -0400
Subject:=C2=A0[Bitcoin-development] Softfork signaling improv= ements
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

Hello. I've seen Greg make a couple of posts online
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3D103= 3396.msg11155302#msg11155302
is one such example) where he has mentioned that Pieter has a new
proposal for allowing multiple softforks to be deployed at the same
time. As discussed in the thread I linked, the idea seems simple
enough. Still, I'm curious if the actual proposal has been posted
anywhere. I spent a few minutes searching the usual suspects (this
mailing list, Reddit, Bitcointalk, IRC logs, BIPs) and can't find
anything.

Thanks.

- ---
Douglas Roark
Senior Developer
Armory Technologies, Inc.
doug@bitcoinarm= ory.com
PGP key ID: 92ADC0D7
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.22 (Darwin)
Comment: GPGTools - http= s://gpgtools.org
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=3DayhE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----




---------- Forwarded message ----------
From:=C2=A0Mark Friedenb= ach <mark@frie= denbach.org>
To:=C2=A0"Raystonn ." <raystonn@hotmail.com>
C= c:=C2=A0Bitcoin Development <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.n= et>
Date:=C2=A0Fri, 8 May 2015 13:40:50 -0700
Subject:=C2=A0Re= : [Bitcoin-development] Block Size Increase
Transaction= s don't expire. But if the wallet is online, it can periodically choose= to release an already created transaction with a higher fee. This requires= replace-by-fee to be sufficiently deployed, however.

On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 1:38 PM= , Raystonn . <raystonn@hotmail.com> wrote:

I have a proposal for wallets such as yo= urs.=C2=A0 How about creating all transactions with an expiration time star= ting with a low fee, then replacing with new transactions that have a highe= r fee as time passes.=C2=A0 Users can pick the fee curve they desire based = on the transaction priority they want to advertise to the network.=C2=A0 Us= ers set the priority in the wallet, and the wallet software translates it t= o a specific fee curve used in the series of expiring transactions.=C2=A0 I= n this manner, transactions are never left hanging for days, and probably n= ot even for hours.

-Raystonn

On 8 May 2015 1:17 pm, Aaron Voisine <voisine@gmail.com> w= rote:
As the author of a = popular SPV wallet, I wanted to weigh in, in support of the Gavin's 20M= b block proposal.

The best argument I've heard again= st raising the limit is that we need fee pressure.=C2=A0 I agree that fee p= ressure is the right way to economize on scarce resources. Placing hard lim= its on block size however is an incredibly disruptive way to go about this,= and will severely negatively impact users' experience.

When users pay too low a fee, they should:

1) See immediate failure as they do now with fees that fail to propagate.<= /div>

2) If the fee lower than it should be but not term= inal, they should see degraded performance, long delays in confirmation, bu= t eventual success. This will encourage them to pay higher fees in future.<= /div>

The worst of all worlds would be to have transacti= ons propagate, hang in limbo for days, and then fail. This is the most impo= rtant scenario to avoid. Increasing the 1Mb block size limit I think is the= simplest way to avoid this least desirable scenario for the immediate futu= re.

We can play around with improved transaction s= election for blocks and encourage miners to adopt it to discourage low fees= and create fee pressure. These could involve hybrid priority/fee selection= so low fee transactions see degraded performance instead of failure. This = would be the conservative low risk approach.

Aaron Voisine
co-founder an= d CEO
breadwallet.c= om

----------------------------------------------------= --------------------------
One dashboard for servers and applications across Physical-Virtual-Cloud Widest out-of-the-box monitoring support with 50+ applications
Performance metrics, stats and reports that give you Actionable Insights Deep dive visibility with transaction tracing using APM Insight.
http://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/290420510;117567292;y
= _______________________________________________
Bitcoin-development mailing list
Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-de= velopment




---------- Forwarded message ----------
From:=C2=A0Damian Gomez = <dgomez1092@gm= ail.com>
To:=C2=A0bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Cc:=C2=A0
Date:=C2=A0Fri, 8 May 2015 14:04:10 -0700
Subject:=C2= =A0Re: [Bitcoin-development] Block Size Increase (Raystonn)
Hello,=C2=A0

I was reading some of the thread but c= an't say I read the entire thing.=C2=A0

I thin= k that it is realistic to cinsider a nlock sixe of 20MB for any block txn t= o occur. THis is an enormous amount of data (relatively for a netwkrk) in w= hich the avergage rate of 10tps over 10 miniutes would allow for fewasible = transformation of data at this curent point in time.

Though I do not see what extra hash information would be stored in the o= verall ecosystem as we begin to describe what the scripts that are atacrhed= tp the blockchain would carry,=C2=A0

I'd ther= efore think that for the remainder of this year that it is possible to have= a block chain within 200 - 300 bytes that is more charatereistic of some f= easible attempts at attaching nuanced data in order to keep propliifc the b= lockchain but have these identifiers be integral OPSIg of the the entiore b= lock. THe reasoning behind this has to do with encryption standards that ca= n be added toe a chain such as th DH algoritnm keys that would allow for a = higher integrity level withinin the system as it is. Cutrent;y tyh prootocl= oomnly controls for the amount of transactions through if TxnOut script an= d the publin key coming form teh lcoation of the proof-of-work. Form this t= hen I think that a rate of higher than then current standard of 92bytes all= ows for GPUS ie CUDA to perfirm its standard operations of =C2=A01216 flops= =C2=A0 in rde rto mechanize a new personal identity within the chain that = also attaches an encrypted instance of a further categorical variable that = we can prsribved to it.=C2=A0

I think with the cur= rent BIP7 prootclol for transactions there is an area of vulnerability for = man-in-the-middle attacks upon request of =C2=A0bitcin to any merchant as i= s. It would contraidct the security of the bitcoin if it was intereceptefd = iand not allowed to reach tthe payment network or if the hash was reveresed= in orfr to change the value it had. Therefore the current best fit block s= ize today is between 200 - 300 bytws (depending on how exciteed we get)



Thanks for letting me j= oin the conversation
I welcomes any vhalleneged and will reply wi= th more research as i figure out what problems are revealed in my current f= ormation of thoughts (sorry for the errors but i am just trying to move for= ward ---> THE DELRERT KEY LITERALLY PREVENTS IT )


_Damian


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From:=C2=A0Raystonn <= raystonn@hotmail.= com>
To:=C2=A0Mark Friedenbach <mark@friedenbach.org>
Cc:=C2=A0Bitcoi= n Development <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
= Date:=C2=A0Fri, 8 May 2015 14:01:28 -0700
Subject:=C2=A0Re: [Bitcoin-dev= elopment] Block Size Increase

Replace by fee is the bette= r approach.=C2=A0 It will ultimately replace zombie transactions (due to in= sufficient fee) with potentially much higher fees as the feature takes hold= in wallets throughout the network, and fee competition increases.=C2=A0 Ho= wever, this does not fix the problem of low tps.=C2=A0 In fact, as blocks f= ill it could make the problem worse.=C2=A0 This feature means more transact= ions after all.=C2=A0 So I would expect huge fee spikes, or a return to zom= bie transactions if fee caps are implemented by wallets.

-Raystonn

On 8 May 2015 1:55 pm, Mark Friedenbach <mark@friedenbach.org<= /a>> wrote:
The proble= ms with that are larger than time being unreliable. It is no longer reorg-s= afe as transactions can expire in the course of a reorg and any transaction= built on the now expired transaction is invalidated.

On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 1:51 PM, Raystonn <raystonn@hotmail.com>= wrote:
Replace by fee is what I was referencing.=C2=A0= End-users interpret the old transaction as expired.=C2=A0 Hence the nomenc= lature.=C2=A0 An alternative is a new feature that operates in the reverse = of time lock, expiring a transaction after a specific time.=C2=A0 But time = is a bit unreliable in the blockchain

----------------------------------------------------= --------------------------
One dashboard for servers and applications across Physical-Virtual-Cloud Widest out-of-the-box monitoring support with 50+ applications
Performance metrics, stats and reports that give you Actionable Insights Deep dive visibility with transaction tracing using APM Insight.
http://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/290420510;117567292;y
= _______________________________________________
Bitcoin-development mailing list
Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-de= velopment


--047d7bb0427275479f0515994e07--