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 CFD38409 for ; Mon, 10 Aug 2015 14:34:56 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-ig0-f180.google.com (mail-ig0-f180.google.com [209.85.213.180]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 75A00FB for ; Mon, 10 Aug 2015 14:34:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: by igbpg9 with SMTP id pg9so70611516igb.0 for ; Mon, 10 Aug 2015 07:34:56 -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=i9h/NB1y+Dfi2HIDV16Sq2L+rCJBTGM1EsL9WpVrtJ0=; b=GHILZ0cHmTkdiFJN0sXeTckBiQwbM86EDXHEZ+vQ3TaxaUa5Pm86KuS78LmBJyFbXR JCiBuu+QfbvA0v6c815AxKtGuNmFAnk/ol4rfpmzfLCBunF8Ut14lrNrMsQ6E3NaIdCC kpbrTv3iG/EDvDGPs3i8MsF5O+kGzekPhWMqSlO/hFu57YObuG1OiU33wOccOcyTFN1c MKzEl1x6CiYPa7Yq+9+OCQZZ4cSDulNi/AIZTXLHzuRfYP0D7+GtXKX6R3h0+DEnN+yv OA4wfcJEYpxLnzTTViOxHm9irms5araWKBcxYbjqZlTfY0JabWEdL9gPCI5OrKrtMyRu 3Yfw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.50.21.10 with SMTP id r10mr12083170ige.94.1439217295952; Mon, 10 Aug 2015 07:34:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.36.77.201 with HTTP; Mon, 10 Aug 2015 07:34:55 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2015 16:34:55 +0200 Message-ID: From: Pieter Wuille To: Gavin Andresen Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b86eeaeae1d55051cf5e3f4 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: Mon, 10 Aug 2015 14:34:56 -0000 --047d7b86eeaeae1d55051cf5e3f4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 4:12 PM, Gavin Andresen wrote: > > Executive summary: when networks get over-saturated, they become > unreliable. Unreliable is bad. > > Unreliable and expensive is extra bad, and that's where we're headed > without an increase to the max block size. > I think I see your point of view. You see demand for on-chain transactions as a single number that grows with adoption. Once the transaction creation rate grows close to the capacity, transactions will become unreliable, and you consider this a bad thing. And if you see Bitcoin as a payment system where guaranteed time to confirmation is a feature, I fully agree. But I think that is an unrealistic dream. It only seems reliable because of lack of use. It costs 1.5 BTC per day to create enough transactions to fill the block chain at the minimum relay fee, and a small multiple of that at actual fee levels. Assuming that rate remains similar with an increased block size, that remains cheap. If you want transactions to be cheap, it will also be cheap to make them unreliable. -- Pieter --047d7b86eeaeae1d55051cf5e3f4 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 4:12 PM, Gavin Andresen <g= avinandresen@gmail.com> wrote:
=

Executive summary: when networks get over-saturated, they become unreli= able.=C2=A0 Unreliable is bad.

Unreliable and expensive is extra bad, and that's wh= ere we're headed without an increase to the max block size.
=

I think I see your point of view. You see = demand for on-chain transactions as a single number that grows with adoptio= n. Once the transaction creation rate grows close to the capacity, transact= ions will become unreliable, and you consider this a bad thing.

And if you see Bitcoin as a payment system whe= re guaranteed time to confirmation is a feature, I fully agree. But I think= that is an unrealistic dream. It only seems reliable because of lack of us= e. It costs 1.5 BTC per day to create enough transactions to fill the block= chain at the minimum relay fee, and a small multiple of that at actual fee= levels. Assuming that rate remains similar with an increased block size, t= hat remains cheap.

If you want tran= sactions to be cheap, it will also be cheap to make them unreliable.
--
Pieter

--047d7b86eeaeae1d55051cf5e3f4--