There is alot going on in this thread so I'll reply more broadly.
The original post and the assorted limit proposals---lead me to something
I think is worth reiterating: assuming Bitcoin adoption continues to grow at
similar or accelerating rates, then eventually the mempool is going to be
filled with thousands of txs at all times whether block limits are 1MB or 16MB.
This isn't to say that increasing the limit isn't a worthwhile change, but
rather, that if we are going to change the block limit then it should be done
with the intent to achieve a fee rate that maximize surplus (and minimize
burden) to both users and miners. Even with implementation of a a payment
channels system, the pool will likely be faced with having a mountain of txs.
Thus the block limit should be optimized in such that social welfare is
optimized.
Optimized is likely not keeping the limit at 1MB; this maximizes benefit to
miners (producers) while minimizing users' surplus (consumer). 'Unlimited'
blocks are purely the reverse; maximizing user surplus while minimizing miners'
(with the added bonus of creating blocks that will put technical/hardware
strain on the network). So perhaps pursue something in-between that actually
optimizes based on a social welfare formula---not just an arbitrary
auto-adjusting limit like the other proposals I've seen. Feel free to poke
holes in this or e-mail me if curious.
Finally, with respect to getting node counts up, didn't luke-jr or someone
come up with an idea of paying nodes a reward by scraping dust and pooling it
into a fund of sorts? Was this not possible/feasible? Perhaps at least in the
near and medium term something outside of protocol changes could be done to pay
a reward to nodes. Even if this is done via voluntary donation system, it may
be useful for the purposes of seeing how people respond to incentives and
working out an elasticity measure of sorts for running a node.
Ryan J. Martin
[email protected]
(on freenode: tunafizz )
________________________________
From: [email protected]
[[email protected]] on behalf of Aymeric Vitte via
bitcoin-dev [[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 6:33 PM
To: Jared Lee Richardson; Bitcoin Protocol Discussion
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Hard fork proposal from last week's meeting
I have heard such theory before, it's a complete mistake to think that others
would run full nodes to protect their business and then yours, unless it is
proven that they are decentralized and independent
Running a full node is trivial and not expensive for people who know how to do
it, even with much bigger blocks, assuming that the full nodes are still
decentralized and that they don't have to fight against big nodes who would
attract the traffic first
I have posted many times here a small proposal, that exactly describes what is
going on now, yes miners are nodes too... it's disturbing to see that despite
of Tera bytes of BIPs, papers, etc the current situation is happening and that
all the supposed decentralized system is biased by centralization
Do we know what majority controls the 6000 full nodes?
Le 29/03/2017 à 22:32, Jared Lee Richardson via bitcoin-dev a écrit :
> Perhaps you are fortunate to have a home computer that has more than a single
> 512GB SSD. Lots of consumer hardware has that little storage.
That's very poor logic, sorry. Restricted-space SSD's are not a cost-effective
hardware option for running a node. Keeping blocksizes small has significant
other costs for everyone. Comparing the cost of running a node under arbitrary
conditons A, B, or C when there are far more efficient options than any of
those is a very bad way to think about the costs of running a node. You
basically have to ignore the significant consequences of keeping blocks small.
If node operational costs rose to the point where an entire wide swath of users
that we do actually need for security purposes could not justify running a
node, that's something important for consideration. For me, that translates to
modern hardware that's relatively well aligned with the needs of running a node
- perhaps budget hardware, but still modern - and above-average bandwidth caps.
You're free to disagree, but your example only makes sense to me if blocksize
caps didn't have serious consequences. Even if those consequences are just the
threat of a contentious fork by people who are mislead about the real
consequences, that threat is still a consequence itself.
On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 9:18 AM, David Vorick via bitcoin-dev
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
wrote:
Perhaps you are fortunate to have a home computer that has more than a single
512GB SSD. Lots of consumer hardware has that little storage. Throw on top of
it standard consumer usage, and you're often left with less than 200 GB of free
space. Bitcoin consumes more than half of that, which feels very expensive,
especially if it motivates you to buy another drive.
I have talked to several people who cite this as the primary reason that they
are reluctant to join the full node club.
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
--
Zcash wallets made simple: https://github.com/Ayms/zcash-wallets
Bitcoin wallets made simple: https://github.com/Ayms/bitcoin-wallets
Get the torrent dynamic blocklist: http://peersm.com/getblocklist
Check the 10 M passwords list: http://peersm.com/findmyass
Anti-spies and private torrents, dynamic blocklist: http://torrent-live.org
Peersm : http://www.peersm.com
torrent-live: https://github.com/Ayms/torrent-live
node-Tor : https://www.github.com/Ayms/node-Tor
GitHub : https://www.github.com/Ayms
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
