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 1C14D8A8 for ; Tue, 11 Aug 2015 21:23:21 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mout.perfora.net (mout.perfora.net [74.208.4.197]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EB130128 for ; Tue, 11 Aug 2015 21:23:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-io0-f172.google.com ([209.85.223.172]) by mrelay.perfora.net (mreueus003) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0MXXjU-1ZLKb30pRW-00WS8T for ; Tue, 11 Aug 2015 23:23:19 +0200 Received: by iods203 with SMTP id s203so1242190iod.0 for ; Tue, 11 Aug 2015 14:23:18 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.107.148.8 with SMTP id w8mr35633192iod.116.1439328198570; Tue, 11 Aug 2015 14:23:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.50.104.198 with HTTP; Tue, 11 Aug 2015 14:23:18 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <8181630.GdAj0CPZYc@coldstorage> Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2015 22:23:18 +0100 Message-ID: From: Adam Back To: Michael Naber Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:xoyHQAqCL0Tac0GZfBPmeGav32N40pklsIbIZE1VM0yX/2iOrxP fSyWsSebQFsvbLcmKizmHZAbShNu643Cx1aIiYlh+ws65jMLDhjYZYDvM9f8oE29IJjRXsR /ckAlmkggWyO7/niT45By4n1P+CSGj/DanHhWC34W6jhlVBVnruI7mVzlgkJZHegUkKjCOV sj3H9ocs2wULQ9CCkOHbw== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:DmvTbEb2F1o=:dDgqdcL2/7gOpIAw5EHGVH YB2xpc6B3HxyHz0WCoplSI9hIO6kWNsWJwqHl79EpyWjd0oq5Dv5T0d6O/r0mYZCkhZsuSZbN op6up7x82rzs/oHRk3C1XURGXwR3NuElXNRxk4O21yLgOY9hj8ubixOz7Z1c9/khmw5IJgHNu K+CSbaTn1Nl/1A4vMFmBBSyNjyCVo1AEHMJPefTp7AAbDryMj2z773bj8wmJi+L9NiHnWQDCO z0cwehbSTFE1cIWC/IjjFnF3xlngdrHAeMYABdFPd0yq59Am1ejFnzlOeym7L2HretBJWRiKO BNDWY2TuWrKt03NULVWJWcV+QczN2QzE0Bme6io+hCBTisVn1Xdp1dTf5MPMl4j97BDm7owzm WmUnlowX8GRxTRE3dTGRrO9p8uad+3yhTrpqtOLYvx0uTdqAn2D7Kl/GhONPyVrg2lOvKRW5R B6RvSF1h5kajrPSsp/nkOzBqMUgQNwnXEbdMsWHGdFSnTribymZsCkVe+c1xgpoM/xnOs2oCM NzES01l0/SlU+q9NWGSlEXsRoVmOq4ft1x3p0bchGWhYEj5d+fGvtJldExQrkFzCgJk0bKNR9 xKs/xJfPg3MLYIKC4iF+i6MiWObjE9x5VAiUaPNSDN10BfL52HxD7fGCvae2Ge0fn+e6fxL7e xwbiN4zL/3bvPt+c7gGkz/++c8td7VU17PtR/yBQyvN17CPnWLgxFgyfaoD0kUhaO/nAjzasO rfiVkNNlBUTP2bxM X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,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 21:23:21 -0000 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 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 > wrote: >> >> On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 9:37 PM, Michael Naber via bitcoin-dev >> 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 >