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 70AFD8D9 for ; Tue, 11 Aug 2015 19:26:52 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-wi0-f175.google.com (mail-wi0-f175.google.com [209.85.212.175]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0F6A589 for ; Tue, 11 Aug 2015 19:26:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: by wicja10 with SMTP id ja10so87269986wic.1 for ; Tue, 11 Aug 2015 12:26:48 -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=Mco9rJSJZBMMZXQII853PBWB1wpLatnzWlYUjoCmYdw=; b=Zl9jPDms7CAsBc+e7SaJEXLeoW84znC8djWgze1fSZ0EgMK2f3brZ4U+M1YILxnhBW t+2Eq5CQwrnQIpGZ70kyZDcfddnLDsqsUlEnTqpRY0tRAs51WL04oc/uRdxDw8PHWJxH O6uVEXj6Vz9i6Np1YBsEWf5rBYSYscMp7lFoZCRzADai4yaX0OczwfmEFBZ0L84R0yOm qgFtWC1L/VmSZzpHtpZO6IxgZWSWsMaggKnncbmvKM6pW+5rzVyGOSfUzmbi2NVsLpER yzlpEcOxdi9G3lySkrKsHkymw1pYmsJ9PXF6CJwCDNKtIoIBI2Uk170EKHMxRK9ZWFDJ G+AQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.180.91.107 with SMTP id cd11mr36669837wib.51.1439321208806; Tue, 11 Aug 2015 12:26:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.27.78.207 with HTTP; Tue, 11 Aug 2015 12:26:48 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <2547793.e4fEoOQyIR@coldstorage> <1623892.Xps1bl6nlD@coldstorage> <20150811083806.4689995.85497.4220@thomaszander.se> Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2015 14:26:48 -0500 Message-ID: From: Michael Naber To: Mark Friedenbach Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d043bdf745e6275051d0e1527 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 19:26:52 -0000 --f46d043bdf745e6275051d0e1527 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 All things considered, if people want to participate in a global consensus network, and the technology exist to do it at a lower cost, then is it sensible or even possible to somehow arbitrarily set the price of participating in a global consensus network to be expensive? Can someone please walk me through how that's expected to play out because I'm really having a hard time understanding how it could work. On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 2:00 PM, Mark Friedenbach via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > More people using Bitcoin does not necessarily mean more transactions > being processed by the block chain. Satoshi was forward-thinking enough to > include a powerful script-signature system, something which has never > really existed before. Though suffering from some limitations to be sure, > this smart contract execution framework is expressive enough to enable a > wide variety of new features without changing bitcoin itself. > > One of these invented features is micropayment channels -- the ability for > two parties to rapidly exchange funds while only settling the final balance > to the block chain, and to do so in an entirely trustless way. Right now > people don't use scripts to do interesting things like this, but there is > absolutely no reason why they can't. Lightning network is a vision of a > future where everyone uses a higher-layer protocol for their transactions > which only periodically settle on the block chain. It is entirely possible > that you may be able to do all your day-to-day transactions in bitcoin yet > only settle accounts every other week, totaling 13kB per year. A 1MB block > could support that level of usage by 4 million people, which is many orders > of magnitude more than the number of people presently using bitcoin on a > day to day basis. > > And that, by the way, is without considering as-yet uninvented > applications of existing or future script which will provide even further > improvements to scale. This is very fertile ground being explored by very > few people. One thing I hope to come out of this block size debate is a lot > more people (like Joseph Poon) looking at how bitcoin script can be used to > enable new and innovative resource-efficient and privacy-enhancing payment > protocols. > > The network has room to grow. It just requires wallet developers and other > infrastructure folk to step up to the plate and do their part in deploying > this technology. > > On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 2:14 AM, Angel Leon wrote: > >> - policy neutrality. >> - It can't be censored. >> - it can't be shut down >> - and the rules cannot change from underneath you. >> >> except it can be shutdown the minute it actually gets used by its >> inability to scale. >> >> what's the point of having all this if nobody can use it? >> what's the point of going through all that energy and CO2 for a mere >> 24,000 transactions an hour? >> >> It's clear that it's just a matter of time before it collapses. >> >> Here's a simple proposal (concept) that doesn't pretend to set a fixed >> block size limit as you can't ever know the demands the future will bring >> https://gist.github.com/gubatron/143e431ee01158f27db4 >> >> We don't need to go as far as countries with hyper inflation trying to >> use the technology to make it collapse, anybody here who has distributed >> commercial/free end user software knows that any small company out there >> installs more copies in a couple weeks than all the bitcoin users we have >> at the moment, all we need is a single company/project with a decent amount >> of users who are now enabled to transact directly on the blockchain to >> screw it all up (perhaps OpenBazaar this winter could make this whole thing >> come down, hopefully they'll take this debate and the current limitations >> before their release, and boy are they coding nonstop on it now that they >> got funded), the last of your fears should be a malicious government trying >> to shut you down, for that to happen you must make an impact first, for now >> this is a silly game in the grand scheme of things. >> >> And you did sound pretty bad, all of his points were very valid and they >> share the concern of many people, many investors, entrepreneurs putting >> shitload of money, time and their lives on a much larger vision than that >> of a network that does a mere 3,500 tx/hour, but some people seem to be >> able to live in impossible or useless ideals. >> >> It's simply irresponsible to not want to give the network a chance to >> grow a bit more. Miners centralizing is inevitable given the POW based >> consensus, hobbists-mining is only there for countries with very cheap >> energy. >> >> If things remain this way, this whole thing will be a massive failure and >> it will probably take another decade before we can open our mouths about >> cryptocurrencies, decentralization and what not, and this stubornness will >> be the one policy that censored everyone, that shutdown everyone, that made >> the immutable rules not matter. >> >> Perhaps it will be Stellar what ends up delivering at this stubborn pace. >> >> http://twitter.com/gubatron >> >> On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 4:38 AM, Thomas Zander via bitcoin-dev < >> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: >> >>> >It follows then, that if we make a decision now which destroys that >>> property, which makes it possible to censor bitcoin, to deny service, or to >>> pressure miners into changing rules contrary to user interests, then >>> Bitcoin is no longer interesting. >>> >>> You asked to be convinced of the need for bigger blocks. I gave that. >>> What makes you think bitcoin will break when more people use it? >>> >>> Sent on the go, excuse the brevity. >>> *From: *Mark Friedenbach >>> *Sent: *Tuesday, 11 August 2015 08:10 >>> *To: *Thomas Zander >>> *Cc: *Bitcoin Dev >>> *Subject: *Re: [bitcoin-dev] Fees and the block-finding process >>> >>> On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 11:31 PM, Thomas Zander via bitcoin-dev < >>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: >>> >>>> On Monday 10. August 2015 23.03.39 Mark Friedenbach wrote: >>>> > This is where things diverge. It's fine to pick a new limit or growth >>>> > trajectory. But defend it with data and reasoned analysis. >>>> >>>> We currently serve about 0,007% of the world population sending maybe >>>> one >>>> transaction a month. >>>> This can only go up. >>>> >>>> There are about 20 currencies in the world that are unstable and >>>> showing early >>>> signs of hyperinflation. If even small percentage of these people >>>> cash-out and >>>> get Bitcoins for their savings you'd have the amount of people using >>>> Bitcoin >>>> as savings go from maybe half a million to 10 million in the space of a >>>> couple >>>> of months. Why so fast? Because all the world currencies are linked. >>>> Practically all currencies follow the USD, and while that one may stay >>>> robust >>>> and standing, the linkage has been shown in the past to cause >>>> chain-effects. >>>> >>>> It is impossible to predict how much uptake Bitcoin will take, but we >>>> have >>>> seen big rises in price as Cyprus had a bailin and then when Greece >>>> first >>>> showed bad signs again. >>>> Lets do our due diligence and agree that in the current world economy >>>> there >>>> are sure signs that people are considering Bitcoin on a big scale. >>>> >>>> Bigger amount of people holding Bitcoin savings won't make the >>>> transaction >>>> rate go up very much, but if you have feet on the ground you already >>>> see that >>>> people go back to barter in countries like Poland, Ireland, Greece etc. >>>> And Bitcoin will be an alternative to good to ignore. Then transaction >>>> rates >>>> will go up. Dramatically. >>>> >>>> If you are asking for numbers, that is a bit tricky. Again; we are at >>>> 0,007%... Thats like a f-ing rounding error in the world economy. You >>>> can't >>>> reason from that. Its like using a float to do calculations that you >>>> should >>>> have done in a double and getting weird output. >>>> >>>> Bottom line is that a maximum size of 8Mb blocks is not that odd. >>>> Because a 20 >>>> times increase is very common in a "company" that is about 6 years old. >>>> For instance Android was about that age when it started to get shipped >>>> by non- >>>> Google companies. There the increase was substantially bigger and the >>>> company >>>> backing it was definitely able to change direction faster than the >>>> Bitcoin >>>> oiltanker can change direction. >>>> >>>> ... >>>> >>>> Another metric to remember; if you follow hackernews (well, the >>>> incubator more >>>> than the linked articles) you'd be exposed to the thinking of these >>>> startups. >>>> Their only criteria is growth. and this is rather substantial growth. >>>> Like >>>> 150% per month. Naturally, most of these build on top of html or other >>>> existing technologies. But the point is that exponential growth is >>>> expected >>>> in any startup. They typically have a much much more agressive >>>> timeline, >>>> though. Every month instead of every year. >>>> Having exponential growth in the blockchain is really not odd and even >>>> if we >>>> have LN or sidechains or the next changetip, this space will be used. >>>> And we >>>> will still have scarcity. >>> >>> >>> I'm sorry, I really don't want to sound like a jerk, but not a single >>> word of that mattered. Yes we all want Bitcoin to scale such that every >>> person in the world can use it without difficulty. However if that were all >>> that we cared about then I would be remiss if I did not point out that >>> there are plenty of better, faster, and cheaper solutions to finding global >>> consensus over a payment ledger than Bitcoin. Architectures which are >>> algorithmically superior in their scaling properties. Indeed they are >>> already implemented and you can use them today: >>> >>> https://www.stellar.org/ >>> http://opentransactions.org/ >>> >>> So why do I work on Bitcoin, and why do I care about the outcome of this >>> debate? Because Bitcoin offers one thing, and one thing only which >>> alternative architectures fundamentally lack: policy neutrality. It can't >>> be censored, it can't be shut down, and the rules cannot change from >>> underneath you. *That* is what Bitcoin offers that can't be replicated at >>> higher scale with a SQL database and an audit log. >>> >>> It follows then, that if we make a decision now which destroys that >>> property, which makes it possible to censor bitcoin, to deny service, or to >>> pressure miners into changing rules contrary to user interests, then >>> Bitcoin is no longer interesting. We might as well get rid of mining at >>> that point and make Bitcoin look like Stellar or Open-Transactions because >>> at least then we'd scale even better and not be pumping millions of tons of >>> CO2 into the atmosphere from running all those ASICs. >>> >>> On the other side, 3Tb harddrives are sold, which take 8Mb blocks without >>>> problems. >>>> >>> >>> Straw man, storage is not an issue. >>> >>> >>>> You can buy broadband in every relevant country that easily supports the >>>> bandwidth we need. (remember we won't jump to 8Mb in a day, it will >>>> likely >>>> take at least 6 months). >>>> >>> >>> Neither one of those assertions is clear. Keep in mind the goal is to >>> have Bitcoin survive active censorship. Presumably that means being able to >>> run a node even in the face of a hostile ISP or government. Furthermore, it >>> means being location independent and being able to move around. In many >>> places the higher the bandwidth requirements the fewer the number of ISPs >>> that are available to service you, and the more visible you are. >>> >>> It may also be necessary to be able to run over Tor. And not just >>> today's Tor which is developed, serviced, and supported by the US >>> government, but a Tor or I2P that future governments have turned hostile >>> towards and actively censor or repress. Or existing authoritative >>> governments, for that matter. How much bandwidth would be available through >>> those connections? >>> >>> It may hopefully never be necessary to operate under such constraints, >>> except by freedom seeking individuals within existing totalitarian regimes. >>> However the credible threat of doing so may be what keeps Bitcoin from >>> being repressed in the first place. Lose the capability to go underground, >>> and it will be pressured into regulation, eventually. >>> >>> To the second point, it has been previously pointed out that large >>> miners stand to gain from larger blocks, for the same basic underlying >>> reasons as selfish mining. The incentive is to increase blocks, and miners >>> are able to do so at will and without cost. I would not be so certain that >>> we wouldn't see large blocks sooner than that. >>> >>> >>>> We should get the inverted bloom filters stuff (or competing products) >>>> working >>>> at least on a one-to-one basis so we can solve the propagation time >>>> problem. >>>> There frankly is a huge amount of optimization that can be done in that >>>> area, >>>> we don't even use locality (pingtime) to optimize distribution. >>>> From my experience you can expect a 2-magnitude speedup in that same 6 >>>> month >>>> period by focusing some research there. >>>> >>> >>> This is basically already deployed thanks to Matt's relay network. >>> Further improvements are not going to have dramatic effects. >>> >>> >>>> Remember 8Gb/block still doesn't support VISA/Mastercard. >>>> >>> >>> No, it doesn't. And 8GB/block is ludicrously large -- it would >>> absolutely, without any doubt destroy the very nature of Bitcoin, turning >>> it into a fundamentally uninteresting reincarnation of the existing >>> financial system. And still be unable to compete with VISA/Mastercard. >>> >>> So why then the pressure to go down a route that WILL lead to failure by >>> your own metrics? >>> >>> I humbly suggest that maybe we should play the strengths of Bitcoin >>> instead -- it's trustlessness via policy neutrality. >>> >>> Either that, or go work on Stellar. Because that's where it's headed >>> otherwise. >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 > > --f46d043bdf745e6275051d0e1527 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
All things considered, if people want to participate in a = global consensus network, and the technology exist to do it at a lower cost= , then is it sensible or even possible to somehow arbitrarily set the price= of participating in a global consensus network to be expensive? Can someon= e please walk me through how that's expected to play out because I'= m really having a hard time understanding how it could work.

=


On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 2:00 PM, Mark Friedenbach via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote= :
More pe= ople using Bitcoin does not necessarily mean more transactions being proces= sed by the block chain. Satoshi was forward-thinking enough to include a po= werful script-signature system, something which has never really existed be= fore. Though suffering from some limitations to be sure, this smart contrac= t execution framework is expressive enough to enable a wide variety of new = features without changing bitcoin itself.

One of these invente= d features is micropayment channels -- the ability for two parties to rapid= ly exchange funds while only settling the final balance to the block chain,= and to do so in an entirely trustless way. Right now people don't use = scripts to do interesting things like this, but there is absolutely no reas= on why they can't. Lightning network is a vision of a future where ever= yone uses a higher-layer protocol for their transactions which only periodi= cally settle on the block chain. It is entirely possible that you may be ab= le to do all your day-to-day transactions in bitcoin yet only settle accoun= ts every other week, totaling 13kB per year. A 1MB block could support that= level of usage by 4 million people, which is many orders of magnitude more= than the number of people presently using bitcoin on a day to day basis.
And that, by the way, is without considering as-yet uninvented = applications of existing or future script which will provide even further i= mprovements to scale. This is very fertile ground being explored by very fe= w people. One thing I hope to come out of this block size debate is a lot m= ore people (like Joseph Poon) looking at how bitcoin script can be used to = enable new and innovative resource-efficient and privacy-enhancing payment = protocols.

The network has room to grow. It just requires wall= et developers and other infrastructure folk to step up to the plate and do = their part in deploying this technology.

On= Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 2:14 AM, Angel Leon <gubatron@gmail.com> wrote:
- policy neutrality.=C2=A0
- It can't be censored.
- it can't be shut down
- and the rules cannot change from underneath you.

except it can be shutdown the minute it actually gets used by its= inability to scale.

what's the point of having all this if nobo= dy can use it?
what's the point of going through all that energy and= CO2 for a mere 24,000 transactions an hour?

It's clear that it&= #39;s just a matter of time before it collapses.

Here's a simple= proposal (concept) that doesn't pretend to set a fixed block size limi= t as you can't ever know the demands the future will bring htt= ps://gist.github.com/gubatron/143e431ee01158f27db4

We don't= need to go as far as countries with hyper inflation trying to use the tech= nology to make it collapse, anybody here who has distributed commercial/fre= e end user software knows that any small company out there installs more co= pies in a couple weeks than all the bitcoin users we have at the moment, al= l we need is a single company/project with a decent amount of users who are= now enabled to transact directly on the blockchain to screw it all up (per= haps OpenBazaar this winter could make this whole thing come down, hopefull= y they'll take this debate and the current limitations before their rel= ease, and boy are they coding nonstop on it now that they got funded), the = last of your fears should be a malicious government trying to shut you down= , for that to happen you must make an impact first, for now this is a silly= game in the grand scheme of things.

And you did sound pretty= bad, all of his points were very valid and they share the concern of many = people, many investors, entrepreneurs putting shitload of money, time and t= heir lives on a much larger vision than that of a network that does a mere = 3,500 tx/hour, but some people seem to be able to live in impossible or use= less ideals.=C2=A0

It's simply irresponsible t= o not want to give the network a chance to grow a bit more. Miners centrali= zing is inevitable given the POW based consensus, hobbists-mining is only t= here for countries with very cheap energy.

If things remain this way= , this whole thing will be a massive failure and it will probably take anot= her decade before we can open our mouths about cryptocurrencies, decentrali= zation and what not, and this stubornness will be the one policy that censo= red everyone, that shutdown everyone, that made the immutable rules not mat= ter.

Perhaps it will be Stellar what ends up delivering at this stub= born pace.


On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 4:38 AM, T= homas Zander via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxf= oundation.org> wrote:
=
>It follows then, that if we make a decision now w= hich destroys that property, which makes it possible to censor bitcoin, to = deny service, or to pressure miners into changing rules contrary to user in= terests, then Bitcoin is no longer interesting.

You asked to be convinced of the need for bigger blocks. I gave that.
What makes you think bitcoin will break when more people use it?<= /span>
=

= = =
Sent=C2=A0on=C2=A0the=C2=A0go,=C2=A0excuse=C2= =A0the=C2=A0brevity.=C2=A0
= =
From: Mark Friedenbach
Sent: = Tuesday, 11 August 2015 08:10
To: Thomas Zander
<= div>Cc: Bitcoin Dev
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Fees= and the block-finding process

On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 11:31 = PM, Thomas Zander via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.l= inuxfoundation.org> wrote:
On Monday 10. A= ugust 2015 23.03.39 Mark Friedenbach wrote:
> This is where things diverge. It's fine to pick a new limit or gro= wth
> trajectory. But defend it with data and reasoned analysis.

We currently serve about 0,007% of the world population sending mayb= e one
transaction a month.
This can only go up.

There are about 20 currencies in the world that are unstable and showing ea= rly
signs of hyperinflation. If even small percentage of these people cash-out = and
get Bitcoins for their savings you'd have the amount of people using Bi= tcoin
as savings go from maybe half a million to 10 million in the space of a cou= ple
of months. Why so fast? Because all the world currencies are linked.
Practically all currencies follow the USD, and while that one may stay robu= st
and standing, the linkage has been shown in the past to cause chain-effects= .

It is impossible to predict how much uptake Bitcoin will take, but we have<= br> seen big rises in price as Cyprus had a bailin and then when Greece first showed bad signs again.
Lets do our due diligence and agree that in the current world economy there=
are sure signs that people are considering Bitcoin on a big scale.

Bigger amount of people holding Bitcoin savings won't make the transact= ion
rate go up very much, but if you have feet on the ground you already see th= at
people go back to barter in countries like Poland, Ireland, Greece etc.
And Bitcoin will be an alternative to good to ignore.=C2=A0 Then transactio= n rates
will go up. Dramatically.

If you are asking for numbers, that is a bit tricky. Again; we are at
0,007%... Thats like a f-ing rounding error in the world economy. You can&#= 39;t
reason from that. Its like using a float to do calculations that you should=
have done in a double and getting weird output.

Bottom line is that a maximum size of 8Mb blocks is not that odd. Because a= 20
times increase is very common in a "company" that is about 6 year= s old.
For instance Android was about that age when it started to get shipped by n= on-
Google companies. There the increase was substantially bigger and the compa= ny
backing it was definitely able to change direction faster than the Bitcoin<= br> oiltanker can change direction.

...

Another metric to remember; if you follow hackernews (well, the incubator m= ore
than the linked articles) you'd be exposed to the thinking of these sta= rtups.
Their only criteria is growth. and this is rather substantial growth. Like<= br> 150% per month.=C2=A0 Naturally, most of these build on top of html or othe= r
existing technologies.=C2=A0 But the point is that exponential growth is ex= pected
in any startup.=C2=A0 They typically have a much much more agressive timeli= ne,
though. Every month instead of every year.
Having exponential growth in the blockchain is really not odd and even if w= e
have LN or sidechains or the next changetip, this space will be used. And w= e
will still have scarcity.
=C2=A0
I'm sor= ry, I really don't want to sound like a jerk, but not a single word of = that mattered. Yes we all want Bitcoin to scale such that every person in t= he world can use it without difficulty. However if that were all that we ca= red about then I would be remiss if I did not point out that there are plen= ty of better, faster, and cheaper solutions to finding global consensus ove= r a payment ledger than Bitcoin. Architectures which are algorithmically su= perior in their scaling properties. Indeed they are already implemented and= you can use them today:

https://www.stellar.org/
http://opentransactions.org/

<= div>So why do I work on Bitcoin, and why do I care about the outcome of thi= s debate? Because Bitcoin offers one thing, and one thing only which altern= ative architectures fundamentally lack: policy neutrality. It can't be = censored, it can't be shut down, and the rules cannot change from under= neath you. *That* is what Bitcoin offers that can't be replicated at hi= gher scale with a SQL database and an audit log.

It follo= ws then, that if we make a decision now which destroys that property, which= makes it possible to censor bitcoin, to deny service, or to pressure miner= s into changing rules contrary to user interests, then Bitcoin is no longer= interesting. We might as well get rid of mining at that point and make Bit= coin look like Stellar or Open-Transactions because at least then we'd = scale even better and not be pumping millions of tons of CO2 into the atmos= phere from running all those ASICs.

On the other side, 3Tb harddrives are sold, which take 8Mb blocks without problems.

Straw man, storage is not an issue.
=C2=A0
You can buy broadband in= every relevant country that easily supports the
bandwidth we need. (remember we won't jump to 8Mb in a day, it will lik= ely
take at least 6 months).

Neither one of= those assertions is clear. Keep in mind the goal is to have Bitcoin surviv= e active censorship. Presumably that means being able to run a node even in= the face of a hostile ISP or government. Furthermore, it means being locat= ion independent and being able to move around. In many places the higher th= e bandwidth requirements the fewer the number of ISPs that are available to= service you, and the more visible you are.

It may also b= e necessary to be able to run over Tor. And not just today's Tor which = is developed, serviced, and supported by the US government, but a Tor or I2= P that future governments have turned hostile towards and actively censor o= r repress. Or existing authoritative governments, for that matter. How much= bandwidth would be available through those connections?

= It may hopefully never be necessary to operate under such constraints, exce= pt by freedom seeking individuals within existing totalitarian regimes. How= ever the credible threat of doing so may be what keeps Bitcoin from being r= epressed in the first place. Lose the capability to go underground, and it = will be pressured into regulation, eventually.

To the sec= ond point, it has been previously pointed out that large miners stand to ga= in from larger blocks, for the same basic underlying reasons as selfish min= ing. The incentive is to increase blocks, and miners are able to do so at w= ill and without cost. I would not be so certain that we wouldn't see la= rge blocks sooner than that.
=C2=A0
We should get the inverted bloom filters stuff (or competing products) work= ing
at least on a one-to-one basis so we can solve the propagation time problem= .
There frankly is a huge amount of optimization that can be done in tha= t area,
we don't even use locality (pingtime) to optimize distribution.
>From my experience you can expect a 2-magnitude speedup in that same 6 mont= h
period by focusing some research there.

This is basically already deployed thanks = to Matt's relay network. Further improvements are not going to have dra= matic effects.
=C2=A0
Remember= 8Gb/block still doesn't support VISA/Mastercard.
=
No, it doesn't. And 8GB/block is ludicrously large -- it= would absolutely, without any doubt destroy the very nature of Bitcoin, tu= rning it into a fundamentally uninteresting reincarnation of the existing f= inancial system. And still be unable to compete with VISA/Mastercard.
So why then the pressure to go down a route that WILL lead to = failure by your own metrics?

I humbly suggest that maybe = we should play the strengths of Bitcoin instead -- it's trustlessness v= ia policy neutrality.

Either that, or go work on Stellar.= Because that's where it's headed otherwise.
<= /div>

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




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


--f46d043bdf745e6275051d0e1527--