Re: [bitcoin-dev] Fees and the block-finding process

> > 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

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Fees and the block-finding process

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 17 August 2015 07:49:21 GMT-07:00, BitMinter operator via bitcoin-dev wrote: >I don't think mining pools will immediately make blocks as big as >possible if the hard limit is raised. Note that XT includes a patch that sets the soft limit to b

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Fees and the block-finding process

On 12.08.15 11.45, Jorge Timón via bitcoin-dev wrote: > 1) Potential indirect consequence of rising fees. > 2) Software problem independent of a concrete block size that needs to > be solved anyway, often specific to Bitcoin Core (ie other > implementations, say libbitcoin may not necessarily share

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Fees and the block-finding process

On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 9:47 PM, Venzen Khaosan wrote: > > On 08/12/2015 10:35 AM, Elliot Olds via bitcoin-dev wrote: > > It depends on which use case's reliability that you focus on. For > > any specific use case of Bitcoin, that use case will be more > > reliable with a larger block size (ignori

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Fees and the block-finding process

On Wednesday 12. August 2015 11.45.53 Jorge Timón wrote: > This question had been dodged repeatedly (one more time in this last > response). This "last response" had a very direct answer to your question, why do you think it was dodged? I wrote; "To buy more time, get bigger blocks now." (quoted

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Fees and the block-finding process

On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 11:23 AM, Thomas Zander via bitcoin-dev wrote: > On Wednesday 12. August 2015 10.51.57 Jorge Timón wrote: >> > Personally I think its a bad idea to do write the way you do, which is > that >> > some people have to prove that bad things will happen if we don't make a >> > ce

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Fees and the block-finding process

On Wednesday 12. August 2015 11.00.29 Jorge Timón wrote: > Don't fear this happening at 1 MB, fear this happening at any size. This > needs to be solved regardless of the block size. I know, everyone knows. There is a lot of work that needs to be done to be able to use bitcoind at an forever gro

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Fees and the block-finding process

On Wednesday 12. August 2015 10.51.57 Jorge Timón wrote: > > Personally I think its a bad idea to do write the way you do, which is that > > some people have to prove that bad things will happen if we don't make a > > certain change. It polarizes the discussion and puts people into camps. > > Peop

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Fees and the block-finding process

On Aug 12, 2015 10:11 AM, "Thomas Zander via bitcoin-dev" < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > On Tuesday 11. August 2015 21.51.59 Pieter Wuille via bitcoin-dev wrote: > > If people are doing transactions despite being unreliable, there > > must be a use for them. > > Thats one usag

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Fees and the block-finding process

On Aug 11, 2015 11:44 PM, "Thomas Zander" wrote: > > On Tuesday 11. August 2015 19.47.56 Jorge Timón wrote: > > On Aug 11, 2015 12:14 AM, "Thomas Zander via bitcoin-dev" > > > See my various emails in the last hour. > > > > I've read them. I have read gavin's blog posts as well, several times. > >

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Fees and the block-finding process

On Tuesday 11. August 2015 21.51.59 Pieter Wuille via bitcoin-dev wrote: > If people are doing transactions despite being unreliable, there > must be a use for them. Thats one usage of the form unreliable. Yes, if people start getting their transactions thrown out because of full blocks or full

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Fees and the block-finding process

On Tuesday 11. August 2015 19.47.56 Jorge Timón wrote: > On Aug 11, 2015 12:14 AM, "Thomas Zander via bitcoin-dev" > > See my various emails in the last hour. > > I've read them. I have read gavin's blog posts as well, several times. > I still don't see what else can we fear from not increasing th

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Fees and the block-finding process

On Tuesday 11. August 2015 21.27.46 Jorge Timón wrote: > Can we agree that the first step in any potentially bad situation is > hitting the limit and then fees rising as a consequence? Fees rising due to scarcity has nothing to do with the problem. Its a consequence that is irrelevant to me. Bad

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Fees and the block-finding process

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Your concern for adoption is valid yet there are a few assumptions in your discussion and they are a common thread in the current wave of "bigger blocksize" topics. 1) Supplying bigger blocks will meet the demand of more people: Anyone can transact v

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Fees and the block-finding process

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 08/12/2015 10:35 AM, Elliot Olds via bitcoin-dev wrote: > On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 2:51 PM, Pieter Wuille via bitcoin-dev > > wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 11:35 PM, Michael Naber > mailto:mick

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Fees and the block-finding process

On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 2:51 PM, Pieter Wuille via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 11:35 PM, Michael Naber > wrote: > >> Bitcoin would be better money than current money even if it were a bit >> more expensive to transact, simply because of it

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Fees and the block-finding process

Hi Michael, > One of the key characteristics toward that is Bitcoin being > inexpensive to transact. What you seem to be missing is *why* bitcoin is better money. Have you considered why is it comparatively inexpensive to transact in a medium that is based on such a highly inefficient technology?

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Fees and the block-finding process

On 8/11/2015 2:23 PM, Adam Back via bitcoin-dev wrote: I dont think Bitcoin being cheaper is the main characteristic of Bitcoin. I think the interesting thing is trustlessness - being able to transact without relying on third parties. That rules out Lightning Network. Lightning relies on thi

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Fees and the block-finding process

to deny >> service, or to pressure miners into changing rules contrary to >> user interests, then Bitcoin is no longer interesting. > > You asked to be convinced of the need for bigger blocks. I gave > that. What makes you think bitcoin will break when more people use > it? > &g

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Fees and the block-finding process

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hello, I thought these were good points, but I have a couple questions.. . On 08/11/2015 12:08 AM, Mark Friedenbach via bitcoin-dev wrote: > On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 11:31 PM, Thomas Zander via bitcoin-dev >

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Fees and the block-finding process

On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 9:28 AM, Pieter Wuille via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 5:55 PM, Gavin Andresen > wrote: > >> I think there are multiple reasons to raise the maximum block size, and >> yes, fear of Bad Things Happening as we run up ag

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Fees and the block-finding process

> So if they dont care about decentralisation, they'll be happy using cheaper off-chain systems, right? You betcha! Just talk to a regular people and try to sell them on the different scenarios. They will start using something cheaper/faster the minute it comes along from the banking industry, ju

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Fees and the block-finding process

On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 11:35 PM, Michael Naber wrote: > Bitcoin would be better money than current money even if it were a bit > more expensive to transact, simply because of its other great > characteristics (trustlessness, limited supply, etc). However... it is not > better than something else

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Fees and the block-finding process

Sure, most people probably would be happy with cheaper off-chain systems. There already are and will probably continue to be more transactions happening off-chain partly for this very reason. That's not the issue we're trying to address though: The main chain is the lynch-pin to the whole system. W

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Fees and the block-finding process

Bitcoin would be better money than current money even if it were a bit more expensive to transact, simply because of its other great characteristics (trustlessness, limited supply, etc). However... it is not better than something else sharing all those same characteristics but which is also less ex

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Fees and the block-finding process

So if they dont care about decentralisation, they'll be happy using cheaper off-chain systems, right? Adam On 11 August 2015 at 22:30, Angel Leon wrote: > tell that to people in poor countries, or even in first world countries. The > competitive thing here is a deal breaker for a lot of people w

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Fees and the block-finding process

On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 11:30 PM, Angel Leon via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > tell that to people in poor countries, or even in first world countries. > The competitive thing here is a deal breaker for a lot of people who have > no clue/don't care for decentralizat

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Fees and the block-finding process

Re: "In my opinion the main source of disagreement is that one: how the maximum block size limits centralization." I generally agree with that, but I would add that centralization is only a goal insofar as it serves things like reliability, transaction integrity, capacity, and accessibility. More

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Fees and the block-finding process

tell that to people in poor countries, or even in first world countries. The competitive thing here is a deal breaker for a lot of people who have no clue/don't care for decentralization, they just want to send money from A to B, like email. http://twitter.com/gubatron On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 5:2

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Fees and the block-finding process

I dont think Bitcoin being cheaper is the main characteristic of Bitcoin. I think the interesting thing is trustlessness - being able to transact without relying on third parties. Adam On 11 August 2015 at 22:18, Michael Naber via bitcoin-dev wrote: > The only reason why Bitcoin has grown the

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Fees and the block-finding process

The only reason why Bitcoin has grown the way it has, and in fact the only reason why we're all even here on this mailing list talking about this, is because Bitcoin is growing, since it's "better money than other money". One of the key characteristics toward that is Bitcoin being inexpensive to tr

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Fees and the block-finding process

I'm not sure whether removing the limit at the protocol-level would lead to government by miners who might reject blocks which were too big, but I probably wouldn't want to take that risk. I think we should probably keep a block size limit in the protocol, but that we should increase it to be as hi

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Fees and the block-finding process

ensored everyone, that shutdown everyone, that >>> made the immutable rules not matter. >>> >>> Perhaps it will be Stellar what ends up delivering at this stubborn pace. >>> >>> http://twitter.com/gubatron >>> >>> On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 4:38 A

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Fees and the block-finding process

On Aug 11, 2015 9:37 PM, "Michael Naber" wrote: > Hitting the limit in and of itself is not necessarily a bad thing. The question at hand is whether we should constrain that limit below what technology is capable of delivering. I'm arguing that not only we should not, but that we could not even i

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Fees and the block-finding process

On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 9:37 PM, Michael Naber via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > Hitting the limit in and of itself is not necessarily a bad thing. The > question at hand is whether we should constrain that limit below what > technology is capable of delivering. I'm

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Fees and the block-finding process

On Aug 11, 2015 8:55 PM, "Michael Naber" wrote: > > It generally doesn't matter that every node validate your coffee transaction, and those transactions can and will probably be moved onto offchain solutions in order to avoid paying the cost of achieving global consensus. But you still don't get t

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Fees and the block-finding process

Jorge, As long as Bitcoin remains the best global consensus network -- and part of being best means being reasonably priced -- then no I don't think people will be pushed into altcoins. Better money ultimately displaces worse money, so I don't see a driving force for people to move to other altcoin

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Fees and the block-finding process

On Aug 11, 2015 8:46 PM, "Michael Naber" wrote: > > Hi Jorge: Many people would like to participate in a global consensus network -- which is a network where all the participating nodes are aware of and agree upon every transaction. Constraining Bitcoin capacity below the limits of technology will

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Fees and the block-finding process

at 4:38 AM, Thomas Zander via bitcoin-dev < >> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: >> >>> >It follows then, that if we make a decision now which destroys that >>> property, which makes it possible to censor bitcoin, to deny service, or to >>>

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Fees and the block-finding process

to user interests, then >> Bitcoin is no longer interesting. >> >> You asked to be convinced of the need for bigger blocks. I gave that. >> What makes you think bitcoin will break when more people use it? >> >> Sent on the go, excuse the brevity. >> *From: *Ma

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Fees and the block-finding process

Lightning *depends* on global consensus in order to function. You can't use it without a global consensus network at all. So given that there is absolutely a place for a global consensus network, we need to decide whether the cost to participate in that global consensus will be limited above or bel

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Fees and the block-finding process

It generally doesn't matter that every node validate your coffee transaction, and those transactions can and will probably be moved onto offchain solutions in order to avoid paying the cost of achieving global consensus. But you still don't get to set the cost of global consensus artificially. Mark

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Fees and the block-finding process

On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 1:46 PM, Michael Naber via bitcoin-dev wrote: > Note that lightning / hub and spoke do not meet requirements for users > wishing to participate in global consensus, because they are not global > consensus networks, since all participating nodes are not aware of all > transa

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Fees and the block-finding process

Michael, why does it matter that every node in the world process and validate your morning coffee transaction? Why does it matter to anyone except you and the coffee vendor? On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 11:46 AM, Michael Naber via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > Hi Jorge:

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Fees and the block-finding process

Hi Jorge: Many people would like to participate in a global consensus network -- which is a network where all the participating nodes are aware of and agree upon every transaction. Constraining Bitcoin capacity below the limits of technology will only push users seeking to participate in a global c

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Fees and the block-finding process

On Aug 11, 2015 12:14 AM, "Thomas Zander via bitcoin-dev" < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > On Monday 10. August 2015 13.55.03 Jorge Timón via bitcoin-dev wrote: > > Gavin, I interpret the absence of response to these questions as a > > sign that everybody agrees that there's no

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Fees and the block-finding process

On Aug 9, 2015 10:44 PM, "Dave Scotese via bitcoin-dev" < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > On Sun, Aug 9, 2015 at 3:42 AM, Thomas Zander via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: >> >> On Saturday 8. August 2015 15.45.28 Dave Scotese via bitcoin-dev wrote: >>

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Fees and the block-finding process

On Tuesday 11. August 2015 00.08.42 Mark Friedenbach wrote: > On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 11:31 PM, Thomas Zander via bitcoin-dev < > So why do I work on Bitcoin, [] It can't > be censored, it can't be shut down, and the rules cannot change from > underneath you. Fully agreed, and I like that a lot as

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Fees and the block-finding process

blocks. I gave that. > What makes you think bitcoin will break when more people use it? > > Sent on the go, excuse the brevity. > *From: *Mark Friedenbach > *Sent: *Tuesday, 11 August 2015 08:10 > *To: *Thomas Zander > *Cc: *Bitcoin Dev > *Subject: *Re: [bitcoin-dev] Fees an

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Fees and the block-finding process

>It follows then, that if we make a decision now which destroys that property, which makes it possible to censor bitcoin, to deny service, or to pressure miners into changing rules contrary to user interests, then

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Fees and the block-finding process

On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 11:31 PM, Thomas Zander via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > On Monday 10. August 2015 23.03.39 Mark Friedenbach wrote: > > This is where things diverge. It's fine to pick a new limit or growth > > trajectory. But defend it with data and reasone

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Fees and the block-finding process

On Monday 10. August 2015 23.03.39 Mark Friedenbach wrote: > > So, while LN is written, rolled out and tested, we need to respond with > > bigger > > blocks. 8Mb - 8Gb sounds good to me. > > This is where things diverge. It's fine to pick a new limit or growth > trajectory. But defend it with dat

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Fees and the block-finding process

On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 10:34 PM, Thomas Zander via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > So, while LN is written, rolled out and tested, we need to respond with > bigger > blocks. 8Mb - 8Gb sounds good to me. > This is where things diverge. It's fine to pick a new limit

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Fees and the block-finding process

On Tuesday 11. August 2015 00.52.23 Pieter Wuille wrote: > The whole point is that whether confirmation at a particular price point is > reliable depends on how much demand there is at that price point. And > increasing the block size out of fear of what might happen is failing to > recognize that

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Fees and the block-finding process

On Aug 11, 2015 12:52 AM, "Pieter Wuille" wrote: > > > On Aug 11, 2015 12:18 AM, "Thomas Zander via bitcoin-dev" < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > > Have you ever been to a concert that was far away from public transport? They > > typically set up bus shuttles, or taxis to get pe

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Fees and the block-finding process

On Aug 11, 2015 12:18 AM, "Thomas Zander via bitcoin-dev" < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > Have you ever been to a concert that was far away from public transport? They > typically set up bus shuttles, or taxis to get people back into town > afterwards. > The result there is alway

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Fees and the block-finding process

On Monday 10. August 2015 16.55.40 Jorge Timón via bitcoin-dev wrote: > I'm not trying to be obstinate but I seriously can't see how they are > different. > When you say unreliable I think you mean "unreliable for cheap fee > transactions". Transactions with the highest fees will always confirm > r

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Fees and the block-finding process

On Monday 10. August 2015 13.55.03 Jorge Timón via bitcoin-dev wrote: > Gavin, I interpret the absence of response to these questions as a > sign that everybody agrees that there's no other reason to increase > the consensus block size other than to avoid minimum market fees from > rising (above z

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Fees and the block-finding process

On Monday 10. August 2015 10.24.18 Alex Morcos via bitcoin-dev wrote: > think they are more just an example of how > immature all of this technology is, and we should be concentrating on > improving it before we're trying to scale it to world acceptance levels. Would it be an idea to create a gen

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Fees and the block-finding process

On Monday 10. August 2015 16.34.55 Pieter Wuille via bitcoin-dev wrote: > 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

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Fees and the block-finding process

On Aug 10, 2015 4:12 PM, "Gavin Andresen" wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 1:33 PM, Jorge Timón wrote: >> >> >> On Aug 7, 2015 5:55 PM, "Gavin Andresen" wrote: > Executive summary: when networks get over-saturated, they become unreliable. Unreliable is bad. > > Unreliable and expensive is extr

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Fees and the block-finding process

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

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Fees and the block-finding process

Gavin, They are not analogous. Increasing performance and making other changes that will help allow scaling can be done while at small scale or large scale. Dealing with full blocks and the resultant feedback effects is something that can only be done when blocks are full. It's just too complicat

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Fees and the block-finding process

On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 1:33 PM, Jorge Timón wrote: > > On Aug 7, 2015 5:55 PM, "Gavin Andresen" wrote: > > > > I think there are multiple reasons to raise the maximum block size, and > yes, fear of Bad Things Happening as we run up against the 1MB limit is one > of the reasons. > > What are the

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Fees and the block-finding process

On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 2:33 PM, Btc Drak wrote: > Additionally, correct me if I am wrong, but the net effect from preventing > fees rising from zero would be to guarantee miners have no alternative > income from fees as block subsidy dries up and thus harm the incentives to > secure the chain. I

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Fees and the block-finding process

On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 12:55 PM, Jorge Timón < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > Gavin, I interpret the absence of response to these questions as a > sign that everybody agrees that there's no other reason to increase > the consensus block size other than to avoid minimum market fe

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Fees and the block-finding process

Gavin, I interpret the absence of response to these questions as a sign that everybody agrees that there's no other reason to increase the consensus block size other than to avoid minimum market fees from rising (above zero). Feel free to correct that notion at any time by answering the questions

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Fees and the block-finding process

On Sun, Aug 9, 2015 at 3:42 AM, Thomas Zander via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > On Saturday 8. August 2015 15.45.28 Dave Scotese via bitcoin-dev wrote: > > Someone mentioned that when the backlog grows faster than it shrinks, > that > > is a real problem. I don't t

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Fees and the block-finding process

On Saturday 8. August 2015 15.45.28 Dave Scotese via bitcoin-dev wrote: > Someone mentioned that when the backlog grows faster than it shrinks, that > is a real problem. I don't think it is. It is a problem for those who > don't wait for even one confirmation The mention you refer to was about t

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Fees and the block-finding process

On Saturday 8. August 2015 19.05.29 Alex Morcos via bitcoin-dev wrote: > I agree > There are a lot of difficult technical problems introduced by insufficient > block space that are best addressed now. I agree problems for space restrictions should be solved, and the sooner the better. What your s

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Fees and the block-finding process

You people are the most selfish kind of people in the world. Blackmail developers with overload of the system, to try to force them to urgently come up with solutions to the problem. The solution is always going to be... wait for it... "increase the block size". There is not enough time or manpower

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Fees and the block-finding process

I agree There are a lot of difficult technical problems introduced by insufficient block space that are best addressed now. As well as problems that scale will exacerbate like bootstrapping that we should develop solutions for first. Sent from my iPad > On Aug 8, 2015, at 6:45 PM, Dave Scot

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Fees and the block-finding process

I see value in lowering the block size or leaving it where it is. We expect to run out of space, and I think it's a good idea to prepare for that, rather than avoid it. When we run out of space and the block size is low, we will see problems. If we raise the block size, we will NOT see these prob

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Fees and the block-finding process

Please try to focus on constructive technical comments. On 7 August 2015 at 23:12, Thomas Zander via bitcoin-dev wrote: > What will the backlash be when people here that are pushing for "off-chain- > transactions" fail to produce a properly working alternative, which > essentially means we have t

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Fees and the block-finding process

On Friday 7. August 2015 19.33.34 Jorge Timón via bitcoin-dev wrote: > When "the network runs out of capacity" (when we hit the limit) do we > expect anything to happen apart from minimum market fees rising (above > zero)? How many clients actually evict transactions from their mempool currently?

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Fees and the block-finding process

On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 10:16 AM, Pieter Wuille via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > But perhaps there is some "use" for ultra-low-priority unreliable > transactions (... despite DoS attacks). > I can think of a variety of protocols that broadcast information and don

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Fees and the block-finding process

> On 7 Aug 2015, at 16:17, Ryan Butler via bitcoin-dev > wrote: > > A raspberry pie 2 node on reasonable Internet connection with a reasonable > hard drive can run a node with 8 or 20mb blocks easily. > I'm curious as I've not seen any data on this subject. How fast can a RP2 do the necessar

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Fees and the block-finding process

Peter's proposal undercuts matching blocksize growth to technological progress not limiting centralization pressure. They are somewhat related, but I want to be clear on what I originally stated. I would also point out that Peter's proposal lacks this technical criteria as well. That being said,

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Fees and the block-finding process

Surely you have some sort of empirical measurement demonstrating the validity of that statement? That is to say you've established some technical criteria by which to determine how much centralization pressure is too much, and shown that Pieter's proposal undercuts expected progress in that area?

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Fees and the block-finding process

Clarification... These are not mutually exclusive. We can design an increase to blocksize that increases available space on chain AND follow technological evolution. Peter's latest proposal is way too conservative on that front. And given Peter's assertion that demand is infinite there will sti

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Fees and the block-finding process

Who said anything about scaling bitcoin to visa levels now? We're talking about an increase now that scales into the future at a rate that is consistent with technological progress. Peter himself said "So, I think the block size should follow technological evolution...". The blocksize increase p

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Fees and the block-finding process

> ...blocks are found at random intervals. > > Every once in a while the network will get lucky and we'll find six blocks in > ten minutes. If you are deciding what transaction fee to put on your > transaction, and you're willing to wait until that six-blocks-in-ten-minutes > once-a-week event,

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Fees and the block-finding process

That's a good question. An argument has been put forward that a larger block size would reduce the security of the network, so does the converse hold? On 08/07/2015 11:17 AM, jl2012 via bitcoin-dev wrote: > What if we reduce the block size to 0.125MB? That will allow 0.375tx/s. > If 3->24 sound

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Fees and the block-finding process

On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 1:17 PM, jl2012 via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > No, I'm not trolling. I really want someone to tell me why we > should/shouldn't reduce the block size. Are we going to have more or less > full nodes if we reduce the block size? Some argume

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Fees and the block-finding process

Please don't put words into Pieter's mouth. I guarantee you everyone working on Bitcoin in their heart of hearts would prefer everyone in the world being able to use the Bitcoin ledger for whatever purpose, if there were no cost. But like any real world engineering issue, this is a matter of trade

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Fees and the block-finding process

On 8 August 2015 at 00:57, Gavin Andresen via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > I answered: > >> > 1. If you are willing to wait an infinite amount of time, I think the >> > minimum fee will always be zero or very close to zero, so I think it's a >> > silly question. >

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Fees and the block-finding process

Pieter Wuille via bitcoin-dev 於 2015-08-07 12:28 寫到: On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 5:55 PM, Gavin Andresen wrote: On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 11:16 AM, Pieter Wuille wrote: I guess my question (and perhaps that's what Jorge is after): do you feel that blocks should be increased in response to (or for f

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Fees and the block-finding process

Interesting position there Peter...you fear more people actually using bitcoin. The less on chain transactions the lower the velocity and the lower the value of the network. I would be careful what you ask for because you end up having nothing left to even root the security of these off chain tra

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Fees and the block-finding process

On Aug 7, 2015 5:55 PM, "Gavin Andresen" wrote: > > I think there are multiple reasons to raise the maximum block size, and yes, fear of Bad Things Happening as we run up against the 1MB limit is one of the reasons. What are the other reasons? > I take the opinion of smart engineers who actually

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Fees and the block-finding process

On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 5:55 PM, Gavin Andresen wrote: > On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 11:16 AM, Pieter Wuille > wrote: > >> I guess my question (and perhaps that's what Jorge is after): do you feel >> that blocks should be increased in response to (or for fear of) such a >> scenario. >> > > I think the

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Fees and the block-finding process

On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 11:16 AM, Pieter Wuille wrote: > I guess my question (and perhaps that's what Jorge is after): do you feel > that blocks should be increased in response to (or for fear of) such a > scenario. > I think there are multiple reasons to raise the maximum block size, and yes, fe

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Fees and the block-finding process

On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 4:57 PM, Gavin Andresen via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > Every once in a while the network will get lucky and we'll find six blocks > in ten minutes. If you are deciding what transaction fee to put on your > transaction, and you're willing to