public inbox for bitcoindev@googlegroups.com
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Michael Naber <mickeybob@gmail.com>
To: Adam Back <adam@cypherspace.org>
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Fees and the block-finding process
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2015 16:39:33 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CALgxB7tDex3JMfGUta=sedqqO2f5+Nb0X6-0msFdD28Wv7v26w@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CALqxMTHpFfOWa897+NX5bwjPb5Ayoqswkbwp5n+S+4vAV-VMpg@mail.gmail.com>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 6149 bytes --]

Sure, most people probably would be happy with cheaper off-chain systems.
There already are and will probably continue to be more transactions
happening off-chain partly for this very reason. That's not the issue we're
trying to address though: The main chain is the lynch-pin to the whole
system. We've got to do a good job meeting demand that people have for
wanting to utilize the main-chain, or else we'll risk being replaced by
some other main-chain solution that does it better.

On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 4:34 PM, Adam Back <adam@cypherspace.org> wrote:

> So if they dont care about decentralisation, they'll be happy using
> cheaper off-chain systems, right?
>
> Adam
>
> On 11 August 2015 at 22:30, Angel Leon <gubatron@gmail.com> wrote:
> > tell that to people in poor countries, or even in first world countries.
> The
> > competitive thing here is a deal breaker for a lot of people who have no
> > clue/don't care for decentralization, they just want to send money from
> A to
> > B, like email.
> >
> > http://twitter.com/gubatron
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 5:23 PM, Adam Back via bitcoin-dev
> > <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> I dont think Bitcoin being cheaper is the main characteristic of
> >> Bitcoin.  I think the interesting thing is trustlessness - being able
> >> to transact without relying on third parties.
> >>
> >> Adam
> >>
> >>
> >> On 11 August 2015 at 22:18, Michael Naber via bitcoin-dev
> >> <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> >> > The only reason why Bitcoin has grown the way it has, and in fact the
> >> > only
> >> > reason why we're all even here on this mailing list talking about
> this,
> >> > is
> >> > because Bitcoin is growing, since it's "better money than other
> money".
> >> > One
> >> > of the key characteristics toward that is Bitcoin being inexpensive to
> >> > transact. If that characteristic is no longer true, then Bitcoin isn't
> >> > going
> >> > to grow, and in fact Bitcoin itself will be replaced by better money
> >> > that is
> >> > less expensive to transfer.
> >> >
> >> > So the importance of this issue cannot be overstated -- it's compete
> or
> >> > die
> >> > for Bitcoin -- because people want to transact with global consensus
> at
> >> > high
> >> > volume, and because technology exists to service that want, then it's
> >> > going
> >> > to be met. This is basic rules of demand and supply. I don't
> necessarily
> >> > disagree with your position on only wanting to support uncontroversial
> >> > commits, but I think it's important to get consensus on the
> criticality
> >> > of
> >> > the block size issue: do you agree, disagree, or not take a side, and
> >> > why?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 2:51 PM, Pieter Wuille <
> pieter.wuille@gmail.com>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 9:37 PM, Michael Naber via bitcoin-dev
> >> >> <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Hitting the limit in and of itself is not necessarily a bad thing.
> The
> >> >>> question at hand is whether we should constrain that limit below
> what
> >> >>> technology is capable of delivering. I'm arguing that not only we
> >> >>> should
> >> >>> not, but that we could not even if we wanted to, since competition
> >> >>> will
> >> >>> deliver capacity for global consensus whether it's in Bitcoin or in
> >> >>> some
> >> >>> other product / fork.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> The question is not what the technology can deliver. The question is
> >> >> what
> >> >> price we're willing to pay for that. It is not a boolean "at this
> size,
> >> >> things break, and below it, they work". A small constant factor
> >> >> increase
> >> >> will unlikely break anything in the short term, but it will come with
> >> >> higher
> >> >> centralization pressure of various forms. There is discussion about
> >> >> whether
> >> >> these centralization pressures are significant, but citing that it's
> >> >> artificially constrained under the limit is IMHO a misrepresentation.
> >> >> It is
> >> >> constrained to aim for a certain balance between utility and risk,
> and
> >> >> neither extreme is interesting, while possibly still "working".
> >> >>
> >> >> Consensus rules are what keeps the system together. You can't simply
> >> >> switch to new rules on your own, because the rest of the system will
> >> >> end up
> >> >> ignoring you. These rules are there for a reason. You and I may agree
> >> >> about
> >> >> whether the 21M limit is necessary, and disagree about whether we
> need
> >> >> a
> >> >> block size limit, but we should be extremely careful with change. My
> >> >> position as Bitcoin Core developer is that we should merge consensus
> >> >> changes
> >> >> only when they are uncontroversial. Even when you believe a more
> >> >> invasive
> >> >> change is worth it, others may disagree, and the risk from
> disagreement
> >> >> is
> >> >> likely larger than the effect of a small block size increase by
> itself:
> >> >> the
> >> >> risk that suddenly every transaction can be spent twice (once on each
> >> >> side
> >> >> of the fork), the very thing that the block chain was designed to
> >> >> prevent.
> >> >>
> >> >> My personal opinion is that we should aim to do a block size increase
> >> >> for
> >> >> the right reasons. I don't think fear of rising fees or unreliability
> >> >> should
> >> >> be an issue: if fees are being paid, it means someone is willing to
> pay
> >> >> them. If people are doing transactions despite being unreliable,
> there
> >> >> must
> >> >> be a use for them. That may mean that some use cases don't fit
> anymore,
> >> >> but
> >> >> that is already the case.
> >> >>
> >> >> --
> >> >> Pieter
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > bitcoin-dev mailing list
> >> > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> >> > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
> >> >
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> >> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> >> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
> >
> >
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 8973 bytes --]

  reply	other threads:[~2015-08-11 21:39 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 94+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2015-08-07 14:57 [bitcoin-dev] Fees and the block-finding process Gavin Andresen
2015-08-07 15:16 ` Pieter Wuille
2015-08-07 15:55   ` Gavin Andresen
2015-08-07 16:28     ` Pieter Wuille
2015-08-07 17:47       ` Ryan Butler
2015-08-07 18:25         ` Mark Friedenbach
2015-08-07 18:57           ` Ryan Butler
2015-08-07 19:07             ` Ryan Butler
2015-08-07 19:15               ` Mark Friedenbach
2015-08-07 20:17                 ` Ryan Butler
2015-08-07 20:33                   ` Dave Hudson
2015-08-07 18:17       ` jl2012
2015-08-07 18:35         ` Bryan Bishop
2015-08-07 18:36         ` Simon Liu
2015-08-11 23:20       ` Elliot Olds
2015-08-07 17:33     ` Jorge Timón
2015-08-07 22:12       ` Thomas Zander
2015-08-07 23:06         ` Adam Back
2015-08-08 22:45           ` Dave Scotese
2015-08-08 23:05             ` Alex Morcos
2015-08-09  5:52               ` Hector Chu
2015-08-09 10:32               ` Thomas Zander
2015-08-09 10:42             ` Thomas Zander
2015-08-09 20:43               ` Dave Scotese
2015-08-11 17:03                 ` Jorge Timón
2015-08-10 11:55       ` Jorge Timón
2015-08-10 12:33         ` Btc Drak
2015-08-10 13:03           ` Jorge Timón
2015-08-10 22:13         ` Thomas Zander
2015-08-11 17:47           ` Jorge Timón
2015-08-11 18:46             ` Michael Naber
2015-08-11 18:48               ` Mark Friedenbach
2015-08-11 18:55                 ` Michael Naber
2015-08-11 19:45                   ` Jorge Timón
2015-08-11 21:31                     ` Michael Naber
2015-08-11 18:51               ` Bryan Bishop
2015-08-11 18:59                 ` Michael Naber
2015-08-11 19:27               ` Jorge Timón
2015-08-11 19:37                 ` Michael Naber
2015-08-11 19:51                   ` Pieter Wuille
2015-08-11 21:18                     ` Michael Naber
2015-08-11 21:23                       ` Adam Back
2015-08-11 21:30                         ` Angel Leon
2015-08-11 21:32                           ` Pieter Wuille
2015-08-11 21:34                           ` Adam Back
2015-08-11 21:39                             ` Michael Naber [this message]
2015-08-12  6:10                               ` Venzen Khaosan
2015-08-11 22:06                             ` Angel Leon
2015-08-11 21:35                         ` Michael Naber
2015-08-11 21:51                           ` Pieter Wuille
2015-08-12  3:35                             ` Elliot Olds
2015-08-12  4:47                               ` Venzen Khaosan
2015-08-14 21:47                                 ` Elliot Olds
2015-08-12  0:56                         ` Tom Harding
2015-08-12  1:18                       ` Eric Voskuil
2015-08-12  8:10                     ` Thomas Zander
2015-08-12  9:00                       ` Jorge Timón
2015-08-12  9:25                         ` Thomas Zander
2015-08-11 19:53                   ` Jorge Timón
2015-08-11 20:56                     ` Michael Naber
2015-08-12  7:54                 ` Thomas Zander
2015-08-12  8:01             ` Thomas Zander
     [not found]             ` <1679272.aDpruqxXDP@coldstorage>
2015-08-12  8:51               ` Jorge Timón
2015-08-12  9:23                 ` Thomas Zander
2015-08-12  9:45                   ` Jorge Timón
2015-08-12 16:24                     ` Thomas Zander
2015-08-17 14:49                     ` BitMinter operator
2015-08-17 15:01                       ` Peter Todd
2015-08-10 14:12       ` Gavin Andresen
2015-08-10 14:24         ` Alex Morcos
2015-08-10 22:12           ` Thomas Zander
2015-08-10 14:34         ` Pieter Wuille
2015-08-10 22:04           ` Thomas Zander
2015-08-20 14:40           ` Will Madden
2015-08-10 14:55         ` Jorge Timón
2015-08-10 22:09           ` Thomas Zander
2015-08-10 22:52             ` Pieter Wuille
2015-08-10 23:11               ` Pieter Wuille
2015-08-11  5:34               ` Thomas Zander
2015-08-11  6:03                 ` Mark Friedenbach
2015-08-11  6:31                   ` Thomas Zander
2015-08-11  7:08                     ` Mark Friedenbach
2015-08-11  8:38                       ` Thomas Zander
2015-08-11  9:14                         ` Angel Leon
2015-08-11 19:00                           ` Mark Friedenbach
2015-08-11 19:26                             ` Michael Naber
2015-08-11 20:12                               ` Adam Back
2015-08-12  0:32                           ` odinn
2015-08-11 11:10                       ` Thomas Zander
2015-08-12  0:18                       ` odinn
2015-08-07 21:30   ` Jim Phillips
2015-08-07 18:22 ` Anthony Towns
2015-08-07 18:36 ` Peter R
2015-08-12  1:56 Corey Haddad

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='CALgxB7tDex3JMfGUta=sedqqO2f5+Nb0X6-0msFdD28Wv7v26w@mail.gmail.com' \
    --to=mickeybob@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