From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1Yx7eA-0002EF-Bi for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 26 May 2015 05:43:26 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.192.171 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.192.171; envelope-from=gappleto97@gmail.com; helo=mail-pd0-f171.google.com; Received: from mail-pd0-f171.google.com ([209.85.192.171]) by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1Yx7e8-0007po-01 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 26 May 2015 05:43:26 +0000 Received: by pdfh10 with SMTP id h10so82734507pdf.3 for ; Mon, 25 May 2015 22:43:18 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.70.22.131 with SMTP id d3mr45825277pdf.67.1432618998278; Mon, 25 May 2015 22:43:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.66.194.168 with HTTP; Mon, 25 May 2015 22:43:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.66.194.168 with HTTP; Mon, 25 May 2015 22:43:17 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Tue, 26 May 2015 01:43:17 -0400 Message-ID: From: gabe appleton To: Jim Phillips Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b6d87187daf180516f59aa0 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 (gappleto97[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 (gappleto97[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 0.0 T_REMOTE_IMAGE Message contains an external image X-Headers-End: 1Yx7e8-0007po-01 Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] No Bitcoin For You 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: Tue, 26 May 2015 05:43:26 -0000 --047d7b6d87187daf180516f59aa0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sync time wouldn't be longer compared to 20MB, it would (eventually) be longer under either setup. Also, and this is probably a silly concern, but wouldn't changing block time change the supply curve? If we cut the rate in half or a power of two, that affects nothing, but if we want to keep it in round numbers, we need to do it by 10, 5, or 2. I feel like most people would bank for 10 or 5, both of which change the supply curve due to truncation. Again, it's a trivial concern, but probably one that should be addressed. On May 25, 2015 11:52 PM, "Jim Phillips" wrote: > Incidentally, even once we have the "Internet of Things" brought on by 21= , > Inc. or whoever beats them to it, I would expect the average home to have > only a single full node "hub" receiving the blockchain and broadcasting > transactions created by all the minor SPV connected devices running withi= n > the house. The in-home full node would be peered with high bandwidth > full-node relays running at the ISP or in the cloud. There are more than > enough ISPs and cloud compute providers in the world such that there shou= ld > be no concern at all about centralization of relays. Full nodes could som= e > day become as ubiquitous on the Internet as authoritative DNS servers. An= d > just like DNS servers, if you don't trust the nodes your ISP creates or > it's too slow or censors transactions, there's nothing preventing you fro= m > peering with nodes hosted by the Googles or OpenDNSs out there, or runnin= g > your own if you're really paranoid and have a few extra bucks for a VPS. > > -- > *James G. Phillips IV* > > > > *"Don't bunt. Aim out of the ball park. Aim for the company of immortals.= " > -- David Ogilvy* > > *This message was created with 100% recycled electrons. Please think > twice before printing.* > > On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 10:23 PM, Jim Phillips wrote= : > >> I don't see how the fact that my 2Mbps connection causes me to not be a >> very good relay has any bearing on whether or not the network as a whole >> would be negatively impacted by a 20MB block. My inability to rapidly >> propagate blocks doesn't really harm the network. It's only if MOST rela= ys >> are as slow as mine that it creates an issue. I'm one node in thousands >> (potentially tens or hundreds of thousands if/when Bitcoin goes >> mainstream). And I'm an individual. There's no reason at all for me to r= un >> a full node from my home, except to have my own trusted and validated co= py >> of the blockchain on a computer I control directly. I don't need to act = as >> a relay for that and as long as I can download blocks faster than they a= re >> created I'm fine. Also, I can easily afford a VPS server or several to r= un >> full nodes as relays if I am feeling altruistic. It's actually cheaper f= or >> me to lease a VPS than to keep my own home PC on 24/7, which is why I ha= ve >> 2 of them. >> >> And as a business, the cost of a server and bandwidth to run a full node >> is a drop in the bucket. I'm involved in several projects where we have >> full nodes running on leased servers with multiple 1Gbps connections. It= 's >> an almost zero cost. Those nodes could handle 20MB blocks today without >> thinking about it, and I'm sure our nodes are just a few amongst thousan= ds >> just like them. I'm not at all concerned about the network being too >> centralized. >> >> What concerns me is the fact that we are using edge cases like my home P= C >> as a lame excuse to debate expanding the capacity of the network. >> >> -- >> *James G. Phillips IV* >> >> >> >> *"Don't bunt. Aim out of the ball park. Aim for the company of >> immortals." -- David Ogilvy* >> >> *This message was created with 100% recycled electrons. Please think >> twice before printing.* >> >> On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 10:02 PM, Thy Shizzle >> wrote: >> >>> Indeed Jim, your internet connection makes a good reason why I don't >>> like 20mb blocks (right now). It would take you well over a minute to >>> download the block before you could even relay it on, so much slow down= in >>> propagation! Yes I do see how decreasing the time to create blocks is a= bit >>> of a band-aid fix, and to use tge term I've seen mentioned here "kickin= g >>> the can down the road" I agree that this is doing this, however as you = say >>> bandwidth is our biggest enemy right now and so hopefully by the time w= e >>> exceed the capacity gained by the decrease in block time, we can then l= ook >>> to bump up block size because hopefully 20mbps connections will be base= line >>> by then etc. >>> ------------------------------ >>> From: Jim Phillips >>> Sent: =E2=80=8E26/=E2=80=8E05/=E2=80=8E2015 12:53 PM >>> To: Thy Shizzle >>> Cc: Mike Hearn ; Bitcoin Dev >>> >>> >>> Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] No Bitcoin For You >>> >>> Frankly I'm good with either way. I'm definitely in favor of faster >>> confirmation times. >>> >>> The important thing is that we need to increase the amount of >>> transactions that get into blocks over a given time frame to a point th= at >>> is in line with what current technology can handle. We can handle WAY m= ore >>> than we are doing right now. The Bitcoin network is not currently Disk, >>> CPU, or RAM bound.. Not even close. The metric we're closest to being >>> restricted by would be Network bandwidth. I live in a developing countr= y. >>> 2Mbps is a typical broadband speed here (although 5Mbps and 10Mbps >>> connections are affordable). That equates to about 17MB per minute, or = 170x >>> more capacity than what I need to receive a full copy of the blockchain= if >>> I only talk to one peer. If I relay to say 10 peers, I can still handle= 17x >>> larger block sizes on a slow 2Mbps connection. >>> >>> Also, even if we reduce the difficulty so that we're doing 1MB blocks >>> every minute, that's still only 10MB every 10 minutes. Eventually we're >>> going to have to increase that, and we can only reduce the confirmation >>> period so much. I think someone once said 30 seconds or so is about the >>> shortest period you can practically achieve. >>> >>> -- >>> *James G. Phillips IV* >>> >>> >>> >>> *"Don't bunt. Aim out of the ball park. Aim for the company of >>> immortals." -- David Ogilvy * >>> >>> *This message was created with 100% recycled electrons. Please think >>> twice before printing.* >>> >>> On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 9:30 PM, Thy Shizzle >>> wrote: >>> >>> Nah don't make blocks 20mb, then you are slowing down block >>> propagation and blowing out conf tikes as a result. Just decrease the t= ime >>> it takes to make a 1mb block, then you still see the same propagation t= imes >>> today and just increase the transaction throughput. >>> ------------------------------ >>> From: Jim Phillips >>> Sent: =E2=80=8E26/=E2=80=8E05/=E2=80=8E2015 12:27 PM >>> To: Mike Hearn >>> Cc: Bitcoin Dev >>> Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] No Bitcoin For You >>> >>> >>> On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 1:36 PM, Mike Hearn wrote: >>> >>> This meme about datacenter-sized nodes has to die. The Bitcoin wiki >>> is down right now, but I showed years ago that you could keep up with V= ISA >>> on a single well specced server with today's technology. Only people li= ving >>> in a dreamworld think that Bitcoin might actually have to match that le= vel >>> of transaction demand with today's hardware. As noted previously, "too = many >>> users" is simply not a problem Bitcoin has .... and may never have! >>> >>> >>> ... And will certainly NEVER have if we can't solve the capacity >>> problem SOON. >>> >>> In a former life, I was a capacity planner for Bank of America's >>> mid-range server group. We had one hard and fast rule. When you are >>> typically exceeding 75% of capacity on a given metric, it's time to exp= and >>> capacity. Period. You don't do silly things like adjusting the business >>> model to disincentivize use. Unless there's some flaw in the system and >>> it's leaking resources, if usage has increased to the point where you a= re >>> at or near the limits of capacity, you expand capacity. It's as simple = as >>> that, and I've found that same rule fits quite well in a number of syst= ems. >>> >>> In Bitcoin, we're not leaking resources. There's no flaw. The system >>> is performing as intended. Usage is increasing because it works so well= , >>> and there is huge potential for future growth as we identify more uses = and >>> attract more users. There might be a few technical things we can do to >>> reduce consumption, but the metric we're concerned with right now is ho= w >>> many transactions we can fit in a block. We've broken through the 75% >>> marker and are regularly bumping up against the 100% limit. >>> >>> It is time to stop debating this and take action to expand capacity. >>> The only questions that should remain are how much capacity do we add, = and >>> how soon can we do it. Given that most existing computer systems and >>> networks can easily handle 20MB blocks every 10 minutes, and given that >>> that will increase capacity 20-fold, I can't think of a single reason w= hy >>> we can't go to 20MB as soon as humanly possible. And in a few years, wh= en >>> the average block size is over 15MB, we bump it up again to as high as = we >>> can go then without pushing typical computers or networks beyond their >>> capacity. We can worry about ways to slow down growth without affecting= the >>> usefulness of Bitcoin as we get closer to the hard technical limits on = our >>> capacity. >>> >>> And you know what else? If miners need higher fees to accommodate the >>> costs of bigger blocks, they can configure their nodes to only mine >>> transactions with higher fees.. Let the miners decide how to charge eno= ugh >>> to pay for their costs. We don't need to cripple the network just for t= hem. >>> >>> -- >>> *James G. Phillips IV* >>> >>> >>> *"Don't bunt. Aim out of the ball park. Aim for the company of >>> immortals." -- David Ogilvy * >>> >>> *This message was created with 100% recycled electrons. Please think >>> twice before printing.* >>> >>> >>> >> > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------= ----- > 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 > > --047d7b6d87187daf180516f59aa0 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Sync time wouldn't be longer compared to 20MB, it would = (eventually) be longer under either setup.

Also, and this is probably a silly concern, but wouldn't= changing block time change the supply curve? If we cut the rate in half or= a power of two, that affects nothing, but if we want to keep it in round n= umbers, we need to do it by 10, 5, or 2. I feel like most people would bank= for 10 or 5, both of which change the supply curve due to truncation.

Again, it's a trivial concern, but probably one that sho= uld be addressed.

On May 25, 2015 11:52 PM, "Jim Phillips&quo= t; <jim@ergophobia.org> wro= te:
Incidentally, even once we have the "Internet of Things" brought= on by 21, Inc. or whoever beats them to it, I would expect the average hom= e to have only a single full node "hub" receiving the blockchain = and broadcasting transactions created by all the minor SPV connected device= s running within the house. The in-home full node would be peered with high= bandwidth full-node relays running at the ISP or in the cloud. There are m= ore than enough ISPs and cloud compute providers in the world such that the= re should be no concern at all about centralization of relays. Full nodes c= ould some day become as ubiquitous on the Internet as authoritative DNS ser= vers. And just like DNS servers, if you don't trust the nodes your ISP = creates or it's too slow or censors transactions, there's nothing p= reventing you from peering with nodes hosted by the Googles or OpenDNSs out= there, or running your own if you're really paranoid and have a few ex= tra bucks for a VPS.

<= div>
--
James G. Phillips IV=C2=A0=C2=A0
"Don't bunt.= Aim out of the ball park. Aim for the company of immortals." -- David= Ogilvy

=C2=A0This message was crea= ted with 100% recycled electrons. Please think twice before printing.<= /font>

On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 10:23 PM, Jim Philli= ps <jim@ergophobia.org> wrote:
I don't see how the fact that my 2Mbps connectio= n causes me to not be a very good relay has any bearing on whether or not t= he network as a whole would be negatively impacted by a 20MB block. My inab= ility to rapidly propagate blocks doesn't really harm the network. It&#= 39;s only if MOST relays are as slow as mine that it creates an issue. I= 9;m one node in thousands (potentially tens or hundreds of thousands if/whe= n Bitcoin goes mainstream). And I'm an individual. There's no reaso= n at all for me to run a full node from my home, except to have my own trus= ted and validated copy of the blockchain on a computer I control directly. = I don't need to act as a relay for that and as long as I can download b= locks faster than they are created I'm fine. Also, I can easily afford = a VPS server or several to run full nodes as relays if I am feeling altruis= tic. It's actually cheaper for me to lease a VPS than to keep my own ho= me PC on 24/7, which is why I have 2 of them.

And as a b= usiness, the cost of a server and bandwidth to run a full node is a drop in= the bucket. I'm involved in several projects where we have full nodes = running on leased servers with multiple 1Gbps connections. It's an almo= st zero cost. Those nodes could handle 20MB blocks today without thinking a= bout it, and I'm sure our nodes are just a few amongst thousands just l= ike them. I'm not at all concerned about the network being too centrali= zed.

What concerns me is the fact that we are usin= g edge cases like my home PC as a lame excuse to debate expanding the capac= ity of the network.

--
James G. Phillips IV=C2=A0=C2=A0
"= Don't bunt. Aim out of the ball park. Aim for the company of immortals.= " -- David Ogilvy

=C2=A0This m= essage was created with 100% recycled electrons. Please think twice before = printing.

On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 10:= 02 PM, Thy Shizzle <thyshizzle@outlook.com> wrote:
<= blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px= #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Indeed Jim, yo= ur internet connection makes a good reason why I don't like 20mb blocks= (right now). It would take you well over a minute to download the block be= fore you could even relay it on, so much slow down in propagation! Yes I do see how decreasing the time to cre= ate blocks is a bit of a band-aid fix, and to use tge term I've seen me= ntioned here "kicking the can down the road" I agree that this is= doing this, however as you say bandwidth is our biggest enemy right now and so hopefully by the time we exceed the capacit= y gained by the decrease in block time, we can then look to bump up block s= ize because hopefully 20mbps connections will be baseline by then etc.
From: Jim Phillips Sent: =E2=80= =8E26/=E2=80=8E05/=E2=80=8E2015 12:53 PM
To: Thy Shizzle
Cc: Mike Hearn; Bitcoin Dev

Subject: Re: [B= itcoin-development] No Bitcoin For You

Frankly I'm good with either way. I'm definitely i= n favor of faster confirmation times.=C2=A0

The important thing is that we need to increase the amount of transact= ions that get into blocks over a given time frame to a point that is in lin= e with what current technology can handle. We can handle WAY more than we a= re doing right now. The Bitcoin network is not currently Disk, CPU, or RAM bound.. Not even close. The met= ric we're closest to being restricted by would be Network bandwidth. I = live in a developing country. 2Mbps is a typical broadband speed here (alth= ough 5Mbps and 10Mbps connections are affordable). That equates to about 17MB per minute, or 170x more capacity = than what I need to receive a full copy of the blockchain if I only talk to= one peer. If I relay to say 10 peers, I can still handle 17x larger block = sizes on a slow 2Mbps connection.

Also, even if we reduce the difficulty so that we're doing 1MB blo= cks every minute, that's still only 10MB every 10 minutes. Eventually w= e're going to have to increase that, and we can only reduce the confirm= ation period so much. I think someone once said 30 seconds or so is about the shortest period you can practically achieve.=

--
James G. Phillips IV=C2=A0=C2=A0=
"Don't bunt. Aim out of the ball park. Ai= m for the company of immortals." -- David Ogilvy

=C2=A0This message = was created with 100% recycled electrons. Please think twice before printing.

On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 9:30 PM, Thy Shizzle <thyshizzle@= outlook.com> wrote:
Nah don't = make blocks 20mb, then you are slowing down block propagation and blowing o= ut conf tikes as a result. Just decrease the time it takes to make a 1mb bl= ock, then you still see the same propagation times today and just increase the transaction throughput.
From: Jim Phillips Sent: =E2=80= =8E26/=E2=80=8E05/=E2=80=8E2015 12:27 PM
To: Mike Hearn
Cc: Bi= tcoin Dev
Subject: Re: [B= itcoin-development] No Bitcoin For You


On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 1:36 PM, Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net> wrote:

This meme about datacenter-sized nodes has to die. The Bitcoin wiki is= down right now, but I showed years ago that you could keep up with VISA on= a single well specced server with today's technology. Only people livi= ng in a dreamworld think that Bitcoin might actually have to match that level of transaction demand with today&#= 39;s hardware. As noted previously, "too many users" is simply no= t a problem Bitcoin has .... and may never have!


... And will certainly NEVER have if we can't solve the capacity p= roblem SOON.=C2=A0

In a former life, I was a capacity planner for Bank of America's m= id-range server group. We had one hard and fast rule. When you are typicall= y exceeding 75% of capacity on a given metric, it's time to expand capa= city. Period. You don't do silly things like adjusting the business model to disincentivize use. Unless there'= s some flaw in the system and it's leaking resources, if usage has incr= eased to the point where you are at or near the limits of capacity, you exp= and capacity. It's as simple as that, and I've found that same rule fits quite well in a number of systems.=C2= =A0

In Bitcoin, we're not leaking resources. There's no flaw. The = system is performing as intended. Usage is increasing because it works so w= ell, and there is huge potential for future growth as we identify more uses= and attract more users. There might be a few technical things we can do to reduce consumption, but the metric we&= #39;re concerned with right now is how many transactions we can fit in a bl= ock. We've broken through the 75% marker and are regularly bumping up a= gainst the 100% limit.

It is time to stop debating this and take action to expand capacity. T= he only questions that should remain are how much capacity do we add, and h= ow soon can we do it. Given that most existing computer systems and network= s can easily handle 20MB blocks every 10 minutes, and given that that will increase capacity 20-fold, I ca= n't think of a single reason why we can't go to 20MB as soon as hum= anly possible. And in a few years, when the average block size is over 15MB= , we bump it up again to as high as we can go then without pushing typical computers or networks beyond their capacit= y. We can worry about ways to slow down growth without affecting the useful= ness of Bitcoin as we get closer to the hard technical limits on our capaci= ty.

And you know what else? If miners need higher fees to accommodate the = costs of bigger blocks, they can configure their nodes to only mine transac= tions with higher fees.. Let the miners decide how to charge enough to pay = for their costs. We don't need to cripple the network just for them.

--
James G. Phillips IV=C2=A0=C2=A0=
"Don't bunt. Aim out of the ball park. Ai= m for the company of immortals." -- David Ogilvy

=C2=A0This message was created with 100% recycled ele= ctrons. Please think twice before printing.





-----------------------------------------------------------------------= -------
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-develo= pment@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-de= velopment

--047d7b6d87187daf180516f59aa0--