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 DB86D26C for ; Tue, 11 Aug 2015 18:46:45 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-wi0-f176.google.com (mail-wi0-f176.google.com [209.85.212.176]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CF0941C8 for ; Tue, 11 Aug 2015 18:46:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: by wicja10 with SMTP id ja10so80214431wic.1 for ; Tue, 11 Aug 2015 11:46:43 -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=25vTixlH8M0YUZmY3d190c9VXMdQAi2slNxDETDkqfU=; b=OJGGrZSqUr8BBVGdiAGRlXLSAEkXkO+9g0cG0fCkmPNmjwK5w3EBLQv1DR0Jum/hz8 26OBdUHUSIukK8fK0aq/V1EUaMMUPX1+QmRYdZ/dC0P5H5bxKxAlYsVWDGgePWdeNe+q Y7kTKkkAwWByfSxZ9nmq8TJwdOqPWHTFQM17dRB3HlMAwPGRbFKNTOgL6l0K2AbRN7Yo PuPuHIkOtPTskcPjRlmL5j4k/Atc3Yp05amNBCA3XIui7AoC3mq7CkCXAkRCSgHl54zr /a9UCAMdAlTALpxReuugYdyPbJazkcupBsWH5B60JcnFzLUd2OdCEzKhA4AZwr/rtmV2 p+3w== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.194.83.70 with SMTP id o6mr58545407wjy.44.1439318803188; Tue, 11 Aug 2015 11:46:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.27.78.207 with HTTP; Tue, 11 Aug 2015 11:46:43 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <8181630.GdAj0CPZYc@coldstorage> Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2015 13:46:43 -0500 Message-ID: From: Michael Naber To: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bb04adefb9103051d0d853d 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] Fees and the block-finding process 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: Tue, 11 Aug 2015 18:46:46 -0000 --047d7bb04adefb9103051d0d853d Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Jorge: Many people would like to participate in a global consensus network -- which is a network where all the participating nodes are aware of and agree upon every transaction. Constraining Bitcoin capacity below the limits of technology will only push users seeking to participate in a global consensus network to other solutions which have adequate capacity, such as BitcoinXT or others. Note that lightning / hub and spoke do not meet requirements for users wishing to participate in global consensus, because they are not global consensus networks, since all participating nodes are not aware of all transactions. On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 12:47 PM, Jorge Tim=C3=B3n < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > On Aug 11, 2015 12:14 AM, "Thomas Zander via bitcoin-dev" < > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > > > On Monday 10. August 2015 13.55.03 Jorge Tim=C3=B3n via bitcoin-dev wro= te: > > > Gavin, I interpret the absence of response to these questions as a > > > sign that everybody agrees that there's no other reason to increase > > > the consensus block size other than to avoid minimum market fees from > > > rising (above zero). > > > Feel free to correct that notion at any time by answering the > > > questions yourself. > > > In fact if any other "big block size advocate" thinks there's more > > > reason I would like to hear their reasons too. > > > > See my various emails in the last hour. > > I've read them. I have read gavin's blog posts as well, several times. > I still don't see what else can we fear from not increasing the size apar= t > from fees maybe rising and making some problems that need to be solved > rewardless of the size more visible (like a dumb unbounded mempool design= ). > > This discussion is frustrating for everyone. I could also say "This have > been explained many times" and similar things, but that's not productive. > I'm not trying to be obstinate, please, answer what else is to fear or > admit that all your feas are just potential consequences of rising fees. > > With the risk of sounding condescending or aggressive...Really, is not > that hard to answer questions directly and succinctly. We should all be > friends with clarity. Only fear, uncertainty and doubt are enemies of > clarity. But you guys on the "bigger blocks side" don't want to spread fu= d, > do you? > Please, prove paranoid people like me wrong on this point, for the good o= f > this discussion. I really don't know how else to ask this without getting= a > link to something I have already read as a response. > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > > --047d7bb04adefb9103051d0d853d Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Jorge: Many people would like to participate in a globa= l consensus network -- which is a network where all the participating nodes= are aware of and agree upon every transaction.=C2=A0Constraining Bitcoin c= apacity below the limits of technology will only push users seeking to part= icipate in a global consensus network to other solutions which have adequat= e capacity, such as BitcoinXT or others. Note that lightning / hub and spok= e do not meet requirements for users wishing to participate in global conse= nsus, because they are not global consensus networks, since all participati= ng nodes are not aware of all transactions.=C2=A0

<= div>

<= br>
On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 12:47 PM, Jorge Tim= =C3=B3n <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>= wrote:


On Aug 11, 2015 12:14 AM, "Thomas Zander via bitcoin-dev" <bit= coin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Monday 10. August 2015 13.55.03 Jorge Tim=C3=B3n via bitcoin-dev wr= ote:
> > Gavin, I interpret the absence of response to these questions as = a
> > sign that everybody agrees that=C2=A0 there's no other reason= to increase
> > the consensus block size other than to avoid minimum market fees = from
> > rising (above zero).
> > Feel free to correct that notion at any time by answering the
> > questions yourself.
> > In fact if any other "big block size advocate" thinks t= here's more
> > reason I would like to hear their reasons too.
>
> See my various emails in the last hour.

I've read them. I have read gavin's blog post= s as well, several times.
I still don't see what else can we fear from not increasing the size ap= art from fees maybe rising and making some problems that need to be solved = rewardless of the size more visible (like a dumb unbounded mempool design).=

This discussion is frustrating for everyone. I could also sa= y "This have been explained many times" and similar things, but t= hat's not productive.
I'm not trying to be obstinate, please, answer what else is to fear or = admit that all your feas are just potential consequences of rising fees.

With the risk of sounding condescending or aggressive...Real= ly, is not that hard to answer questions directly and succinctly. We should= all be friends with clarity. Only fear, uncertainty and doubt are enemies = of clarity. But you guys on the "bigger blocks side" don't wa= nt to spread fud, do you?
Please, prove paranoid people like me wrong on this point, for the good of = this discussion. I really don't know how else to ask this without getti= ng a link to something I have already read as a response.


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


--047d7bb04adefb9103051d0d853d--