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 3C6A783D for ; Fri, 26 Jun 2015 18:29:54 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-wg0-f50.google.com (mail-wg0-f50.google.com [74.125.82.50]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C654017B for ; Fri, 26 Jun 2015 18:29:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: by wguu7 with SMTP id u7so94985675wgu.3 for ; Fri, 26 Jun 2015 11:29:51 -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=e5Abw6g/0yWH1v0h8wbP0HdbAvsIPgz8i22tRunvOoA=; b=tTc73lB2nS/Y0EFbTBrHJj7wlOns1Gt9sWusgEMmwc6UzPYVAqUJet5/cMVvtK7At4 O7ohm5dZc7omA/scXUHibfYLxRifq8IkpWOVt1eZQFPocFonWb9rn6pccOk/SHPnwivO Ghl7ngnOy3ZKnLZl6QKijM7MpDi8bY2VYXZKXW2cSMgE9smPHy576k7PZodTWDSMaRtr zxTVon+J8pl+x0giCNTGBUzu95B2wTRGsDVVGg3asG5XBJ1uqSpXcO5YY1sEH6zbAJ/f gCoKc9njV8l6o2500c+cdUlKn46UEoThhmec4rhySy7nYWU7G0QZr4Zxzwgmrpblfr58 0QMA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.180.13.171 with SMTP id i11mr7247821wic.5.1435343391439; Fri, 26 Jun 2015 11:29:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.180.168.34 with HTTP; Fri, 26 Jun 2015 11:29:51 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2015 14:29:51 -0400 Message-ID: From: Alex Morcos To: Pieter Wuille Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c243a2fa423305196fece4 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@lists.linuxfoundation.org Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] The need for larger blocks 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: Fri, 26 Jun 2015 18:29:54 -0000 --001a11c243a2fa423305196fece4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 I think thats the crux of the issue: "some uses fit, some don't". I don't think anyone can claim to know which fall in which category for sure. But its clear that with the existing technology, achieving decentralization and lack of trusted third parties is expensive, therefore I think it does the world a disservice to pretend everyone can put their microtransactions on the block chain. More importantly, I don't think I'm worried about economic policy or change at all. I'm worried about decentralization. That's the piece we should be concentrating on. Sure a bitcoin with giant blocks could probably serve a bunch more use cases, but what value would it provide if there are 10 centralized miners and processing nodes running the network. We'll beat out Apple Pay or Paypal or Google at their game? Who cares. On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 2:12 PM, Pieter Wuille wrote: > I am not saying that economic change is what we want. Only that it is > inevitable, independent of whether larger blocks happen or not. > > I am saying that acting because of fear of economic change is a bad > reason. The reason for increase should be because of the higher utility. We > need it at some point, but there should be no rush. > > I do understand that we want to avoid a *sudden* change in economic > policy, but I'm generally not too worried. Either fees increase and they > get paid, and we're good. But more likely is that some uses just move > off-chain because the block chain does not offer what they need. That's > sad, but it is inevitable at any size: some uses fit, some don't. > > -- > Pieter > On Jun 26, 2015 7:57 PM, "Jeff Garzik" wrote: > >> It is not "fear" of fee pressure. >> >> 1) Blocks are mostly not-full on average. >> >> 2) Absent long blocks and stress tests, there is little fee pressure >> above the anti-spam relay fee metric, because of #1. >> >> 3) As such, inducing fee pressure is a delta, a change from years-long >> bitcoin economic policy. Each time we approach the soft limit, Bitcoin >> Core increases the soft limit to prevent "full" blocks. Mike Hearn et. al. >> lobbies miners to upgrade. >> >> (note - this is not an endorsement of these actions - it is a neutral >> observation) >> >> 4) Inaction leads to consistent fee pressure as the months tick on and >> system volume grows; thus, inaction leads to economic policy change. >> >> 5) Economic policy change leads to market and software disruption. The >> market and software - notably wallets - is not prepared for this. >> >> 6) If you want to change economic policy, that's fine. But be honest and >> admit you are arguing for a change, a delta from current market >> expectations and behavior. >> >> 7) It is critical to first deal with what _is_, not what you wish the >> world to be. You want a fee market to develop. There is nothing wrong >> with that desire. It remains a delta from where we are today, and that is >> critically relevant in a $3b+ market. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 7:09 AM, Pieter Wuille >> wrote: >> >>> Hello all, >>> >>> here I'm going to try to address a part of the block size debate which >>> has been troubling me since the beginning: the reason why people seem to >>> want it. >>> >>> People say that larger blocks are necessary. In the long term, I agree - >>> in the sense that systems that do not evolve tend to be replaced by other >>> systems. This evolution can come in terms of layers on top of Bitcoin's >>> blockchain, in terms of the technology underlying various aspects of the >>> blockchain itself, and also in the scale that this technology supports. >>> >>> I do, however, fundamentally disagree that a fear for a change in >>> economics should be considered to necessitate larger blocks. If it is, and >>> there is consensus that we should adapt to it, then there is effectively no >>> limit going forward. This is similar to how Congress voting to increase the >>> copyright term retroactively from time to time is really no different from >>> having an infinite copyright term in the first place. This scares me. >>> >>> Here is how Gavin summarizes the future without increasing block sizes >>> in PR 6341: >>> >>> > 1. Transaction confirmation times for transactions with a given fee >>> will rise; very-low-fee transactions will fail to get confirmed at all. >>> > 2. Average transaction fee paid will rise >>> > 3. People or applications unwilling or unable to pay the rising fees >>> will stop submitting transactions >>> > 4. People and businesses will shelve plans to use Bitcoin, stunting >>> growth and adoption >>> >>> Is it fair to summarize this as "Some use cases won't fit any more, >>> people will decide to no longer use the blockchain for these purposes, and >>> the fees will adapt."? >>> >>> I think that is already happening, and will happen at any scale. I >>> believe demand for payments in general is nearly infinite, and only a small >>> portion of it will eventually fit on a block chain (independent of whether >>> its size is limited by consensus rules or economic or technological means). >>> Furthermore, systems that compete with Bitcoin in this space already offer >>> orders of magnitude more capacity than we can reasonably achieve with any >>> blockchain technology at this point. >>> >>> I don't know what subset of use cases Bitcoin will cater to in the long >>> term. They have already changed - you see way less betting transactions >>> these days than a few years ago for example - and they will keep changing, >>> independent of what effective block sizes we end up with. I don't think we >>> should be afraid of this change or try to stop it. >>> >>> If you look at graphs of block sizes over time (for example, >>> http://rusty.ozlabs.org/?p=498), it seems to me that there is very >>> little "organic" growth, and a lot of sudden changes (which could >>> correspond to changing defaults in miner software, introduction of popular >>> sites/services, changes in the economy). I think these can be seen as the >>> economy changing to full up the available space, and I believe these will >>> keep happening at any size effectively available. >>> >>> None of this is a reason why the size can't increase. However, in my >>> opinion, we should do it because we believe it increases utility and >>> understand the risks; not because we're afraid of what might happen if we >>> don't hurry up. And from that point of view, it seems silly to make a huge >>> increase at once... >>> >>> -- >>> 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 > > --001a11c243a2fa423305196fece4 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I think thats the crux of the issue: "some uses fit, some don't".I don't think anyone ca= n claim to know which fall in which category for sure.=C2=A0 But its clear = that with the existing technology, achieving decentralization and lack of t= rusted third parties is expensive, therefore I think it does the world a di= sservice to pretend everyone can put their microtransactions on the block c= hain.
More im= portantly, I don't think I'm worried about economic policy or chang= e at all.=C2=A0 I'm worried about decentralization.=C2=A0 That's th= e piece we should be concentrating on.=C2=A0 Sure a bitcoin with giant bloc= ks could probably serve a bunch more use cases, but what value would it pro= vide if there are 10 centralized miners and processing nodes running the ne= twork.=C2=A0 We'll beat out Apple Pay or Paypal or Google at their game= ?=C2=A0 Who cares.




On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 2:12 PM, = Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com> wrote:

I am not saying that economic cha= nge is what we want. Only that it is inevitable, independent of whether lar= ger blocks happen or not.

I am saying that acting because of fear of economic change i= s a bad reason. The reason for increase should be because of the higher uti= lity. We need it at some point, but there should be no rush.

I do understand that we want to avoid a *sudden* change in e= conomic policy, but I'm generally not too worried. Either fees increase= and they get paid, and we're good. But more likely is that some uses j= ust move off-chain because the block chain does not offer what they need. T= hat's sad, but it is inevitable at any size: some uses fit, some don= 9;t.

--
Pieter

On Jun 26, 2015 7:57 PM, "Jeff Garzik"= <jgarzik@gmail.c= om> wrote:
It is not "fear" of fee pressure.

1) Blocks are mostly not-full on average.

2= ) Absent long blocks and stress tests, there is little fee pressure above t= he anti-spam relay fee metric, because of #1.

3) A= s such, inducing fee pressure is a delta, a change from years-long bitcoin = economic policy.=C2=A0 Each time we approach the soft limit, Bitcoin Core i= ncreases the soft limit to prevent "full" blocks.=C2=A0 Mike Hear= n et. al. lobbies miners to upgrade.

(note - this = is not an endorsement of these actions - it is a neutral observation)
=

4) Inaction leads to consistent fee pressure as the mon= ths tick on and system volume grows; thus, inaction leads to economic polic= y change.

5) Economic policy change leads to marke= t and software disruption.=C2=A0 The market and software - notably wallets = - is not prepared for this.

6) If you want to chan= ge economic policy, that's fine.=C2=A0 But be honest and admit you are = arguing for a change, a delta from current market expectations and behavior= .

7) It is critical to first deal with what _is_, = not what you wish the world to be.=C2=A0 You want a fee market to develop.= =C2=A0 There is nothing wrong with that desire.=C2=A0 It remains a delta fr= om where we are today, and that is critically relevant in a $3b+ market.








On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 7:09 AM, Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello = all,

here I'm going to try to address a part of the block size debate which has been=20 troubling me since the beginning: the reason why people seem to want it.
People say that larger blocks are necessary. In the long term, I agree - in=20 the sense that systems that do not evolve tend to be replaced by other=20 systems. This evolution can come in terms of layers on top of Bitcoin's= =20 blockchain, in terms of the technology underlying various aspects of the blockchain itself, and also in the scale that this technology supports.
I do, however, fundamentally disagree that a fear for a change in=20 economics should be considered to necessitate larger blocks. If it is,=20 and there is consensus that we should adapt to it, then there is=20 effectively no limit going forward. This is similar to how Congress=20 voting to increase the copyright term retroactively from time to time is really no different from having an infinite copyright term in the first place. This scares me.

Here is how Gavin summarizes the futur= e without increasing block sizes in PR 6341:

> 1. Transaction con= firmation times for transactions with a given fee=20 will rise; very-low-fee transactions will fail to get confirmed at all.
= > 2. Average transaction fee paid will rise
> 3. People or applica= tions unwilling or unable to pay the rising fees will stop submitting trans= actions
> 4. People and businesses will shelve plans to use Bitcoin, = stunting growth and adoption

Is it fair to summarize this as "Some use cases won't fit any more, = people will decide to no longer use the blockchain for these purposes, and the fees will adapt."?

I think that is already happening, an= d=20 will happen at any scale. I believe demand for payments in general is=20 nearly infinite, and only a small portion of it will eventually fit on a block chain (independent of whether its size is limited by consensus=20 rules or economic or technological means). Furthermore, systems that=20 compete with Bitcoin in this space already offer orders of magnitude=20 more capacity than we can reasonably achieve with any blockchain=20 technology at this point.

I don't know what subset of use cases= =20 Bitcoin will cater to in the long term. They have already changed - you=20 see way less betting transactions these days than a few years ago for=20 example - and they will keep changing, independent of what effective=20 block sizes we end up with. I don't think we should be afraid of this= =20 change or try to stop it.

If you look at graphs of block sizes= over time (for example, http://rusty.ozlabs.org/?p=3D498), it seems to me that there is very little "organic" growth, and a= lot of sudden changes (which could correspond to changing defaults in miner=20 software, introduction of popular sites/services, changes in the=20 economy). I think these can be seen as the economy changing to full up=20 the available space, and I believe these will keep happening at any size effectively available.

None of this is a reason why the=20 size can't increase. However, in my opinion, we should do it because we= =20 believe it increases utility and understand the risks; not because we'r= e afraid of what might happen if we don't hurry up. And from that point= =20 of view, it seems silly to make a huge increase at once...

--
Pieter


_______________________________________________
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


--001a11c243a2fa423305196fece4--