public inbox for bitcoindev@googlegroups.com
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Mark Friedenbach <mark@friedenbach.org>
To: Michael Naber <mickeybob@gmail.com>
Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] A Proposed Compromise to the Block Size Limit
Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2015 09:28:26 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAOG=w-vxvPpkUohtNKE1PjWXFpNzEbm7cn-ka_Ayi_6vokUOKw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CALgxB7tdFsQXzGRje=suC7Yaym_Whhtn2qrb3ykx2ZOBwwbE7w@mail.gmail.com>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4666 bytes --]

I really suggest you look into the layer2 systems Adam pointed to, as you
appear to be misinformed about their properties. There are many proposals
which really do achieve global consensus using the block chain, just in a
delayed (and cached) fashion that is still 100% safe.

It is possible to go off-chain without losing the trustlessness and
security of the block chain.

On Sat, Jun 27, 2015 at 9:09 AM, Michael Naber <mickeybob@gmail.com> wrote:

> The goal of Bitcoin Core is to meet the demand for global consensus as
> effectively as possible. Please let's keep the conversation on how to best
> meet that goal.
>
> The off-chain solutions you enumerate are are useful solutions in their
> respective domains, but none of them solves the global consensus problem
> with any greater efficiency than Bitcoin does.
>
>
> On Sat, Jun 27, 2015 at 11:33 AM, Adam Back <adam@cypherspace.org> wrote:
>
>> Michael Naber wrote:
>> > Bitcoin Core must remain the lowest-fee, highest-capacity, most secure,
>> distributed, fastest, overall best solution possible to the global
>> consensus problem.
>>
>> Everyone here is excited about the potential of Bitcoin and would
>> aspirationally like it to reach its full potential as fast as
>> possible.  But the block-size is not a free variable, half those
>> parameters you listed are in conflict with each other.  We're trying
>> to improve both decentralisation and throughput short-term while
>> people work on algorithmic improvements mid-term.  If you are
>> interested you can take a look through the proposals:
>>
>>
>> http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-June/008603.html
>>
>> Note that probably 99% of Bitcoin transactions already happen
>> off-chain in exchanges, tipping services, hosted wallets etc.  Maybe
>> you're already using them, assuming you are a bitcoin user.
>> They constitute an early stage layer 2, some of them even have on
>> chain netting and scale faster than the block-chain.
>>
>> You can also read about layer 2, the lightning network paper and the
>> duplex micropayment channel paper:
>>
>> http://lightning.network/lightning-network-paper-DRAFT-0.5.pdf
>>
>> http://www.tik.ee.ethz.ch/file/716b955c130e6c703fac336ea17b1670/duplex-micropayment-channels.pdf
>>
>> and read the development list and look at the code:
>>
>> http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/
>> https://github.com/ElementsProject/lightning
>>
>> Adam
>>
>>
>> On 27 June 2015 at 16:39, Michael Naber <mickeybob@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Demand to participate in a low-fee global consensus network will likely
>> > continue to rise. Technology already exists to meet that rising demand
>> using
>> > a blockchain with sufficient block size. Whether that blockchain is
>> Bitcoin
>> > Core with an increased block size, or whether it is a fork, market
>> forces
>> > make it almost certain that demand will be met by a blockchain with
>> adequate
>> > capacity. These forces ensure that not only today’s block size will be
>> > increased, but also that future increases will occur should the demand
>> > arise.
>> >
>> > In order to survive, Bitcoin Core must remain the lowest-fee,
>> > highest-capacity, most secure, distributed, fastest, overall best
>> solution
>> > possible to the global consensus problem. Attempting to artificially
>> > constrain the block size below the limits of technology for any reason
>> is a
>> > conflict with this objective and a threat to the survival of Bitcoin
>> Core.
>> > At the same time, scheduling large future increases or permitting
>> unlimited
>> > dynamic scaling of the block size limit raises concerns over
>> availability of
>> > future computing resources. Instead, we should manually increase the
>> block
>> > size limit as demand occurs, except in the special case that increasing
>> the
>> > limit would cause an undue burden upon users wishing to validate the
>> > integrity of the blockchain.
>> >
>> > Compromise: Can we agree that raising the block size to a static 8MB now
>> > with a plan to increase it further should demand necessitate except in
>> the
>> > special case above is a reasonable path forward?
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > 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: 6477 bytes --]

  reply	other threads:[~2015-06-27 16:28 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 43+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2015-06-27 14:39 [bitcoin-dev] A Proposed Compromise to the Block Size Limit Michael Naber
2015-06-27 15:21 ` Peter Todd
2015-06-27 15:29   ` Randi Joseph
2015-06-27 15:32     ` Peter Todd
2015-06-27 16:19   ` Michael Naber
2015-06-27 17:20     ` Peter Todd
2015-06-27 17:26       ` Benjamin
2015-06-27 17:37         ` Peter Todd
2015-06-27 17:46           ` Benjamin
2015-06-27 17:54             ` Peter Todd
2015-06-27 17:58               ` Venzen Khaosan
2015-06-27 19:34               ` Benjamin
2015-06-27 15:33 ` Adam Back
2015-06-27 16:09   ` Michael Naber
2015-06-27 16:28     ` Mark Friedenbach [this message]
2015-06-27 16:37     ` Peter Todd
2015-06-27 17:25       ` Michael Naber
2015-06-27 17:34         ` Peter Todd
2015-06-27 18:02           ` Jameson Lopp
2015-06-27 18:47             ` Peter Todd
2015-06-28  5:34 Raystonn
2015-06-28 10:07 ` Adam Back
2015-06-28 10:29   ` Benjamin
2015-06-28 12:37     ` Adam Back
2015-06-28 16:32       ` Raystonn .
2015-06-28 17:12         ` Mark Friedenbach
2015-06-28 17:18           ` Benjamin
2015-06-28 17:29           ` Gavin Andresen
2015-06-28 17:45             ` Mark Friedenbach
2015-06-28 17:51             ` Adam Back
2015-06-28 18:58               ` Adam Back
2015-06-28 21:05                 ` Gavin Andresen
2015-06-28 21:23                   ` Michael Naber
2015-06-28 22:07                   ` Adam Back
2015-06-29  0:59                     ` Eric Lombrozo
2015-06-29  1:13                     ` Eric Lombrozo
2015-06-29  1:45                     ` Andy Schroder
2015-06-30  0:42                     ` Tom Harding
2015-07-10  2:55                 ` Tom Harding
2015-06-28 17:53             ` Jorge Timón
2015-06-28 19:22             ` Andrew Lapp
2015-06-28 19:40               ` Benjamin
2015-06-28 12:32   ` Milly Bitcoin

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='CAOG=w-vxvPpkUohtNKE1PjWXFpNzEbm7cn-ka_Ayi_6vokUOKw@mail.gmail.com' \
    --to=mark@friedenbach.org \
    --cc=bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org \
    --cc=mickeybob@gmail.com \
    /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