On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 2:29 PM, Gavin via bitcoin-dev
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org wrote:
I would like (and have been asking) those people to take the time to quantify
those costs and write up those risks in a careful way.
I agree that having a minimal hardware requirements
On Thursday 30. July 2015 14.50.46 Pieter Wuille via bitcoin-dev wrote:
I believe the costs and risks of 8MB blocks are minimal, and that the
benefits of supporting more transaction FAR outweigh those costs and
risks,
but it is hard to have a rational conversation about that when even
On Jul 30, 2015, at 4:21 AM, Eric Lombrozo wrote:
and a number of the people most intimately familiar with the inner workings
of the system (some of whom are in this thread) think that given what we now
today about the Bitcoin network, increasing block size externalizes costs in
One thing that the below assumption doesn't appear to take into account is
user demand for quick confirmations. I haven't fully thought out the game
theory on this but here goes:
Example: if 75% of hashing power accepts 'medium' fee transactions while
25% is willing to accept low (or any) fee
I have just been around for 2 years or so, and its interesting to see you two
argue and give links to the past conversations.
But do realize that if you argue in public about content that is easy to read
by anyone that you have to double check your memory fits the facts.
And I feel you skipped
I propose to implement dynamic block size limit. Its short summary is here
in doc:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ixt0loN7LOF6M_2HXvV0D-3ZCayvcfj0rzVm-h-6ONg/edit
Comments are allowed
--
Maksim Bozhko
___
bitcoin-dev mailing list
Hello all,
here is a proposal for long-term scalability I've been working on:
https://gist.github.com/sipa/c65665fc360ca7a176a6
Some things are not included yet, such as a testnet whose size runs ahead
of the main chain, and the inclusion of Gavin's more accurate sigop
checking after the hard
1) Unlike previous blocksize hardfork proposals, this uses median time
instead of block.nTime for activation. I like that more but my
preference is still using height for everything. But that discussion
is not specific to this proposal, so it's better if we discuss that
for all of them here:
On 30 Jul 2015, at 06:14, Tom Harding via bitcoin-dev
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org wrote:
Another empirical fact also needs explaining. Why have average fees *as
measured in BTC* risen during the times of highest public interest in
bitcoin? This happened without block size
On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 4:05 PM, Gavin Andresen via bitcoin-dev
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org wrote:
On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 8:50 AM, Pieter Wuille pieter.wui...@gmail.com
So what do you think the scalability road map should look like? Should we
wait to hard fork until Blockstream
On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 4:52 PM, Thomas Zander via bitcoin-dev
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org wrote:
On Thursday 30. July 2015 11.38.00 Jorge Timón via bitcoin-dev wrote:
It is important ro note that even if lightning was never developed, the
block size remains at 1 MB forever and fees
On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 4:05 PM, Gavin Andresen gavinandre...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 8:50 AM, Pieter Wuille pieter.wui...@gmail.com
wrote:
Let's scale the block size gradually over time, according to
technological growth.
Yes, lets do that-- that is EXACTLY what BIP101
Yes. So far, the transaction count factor has completely dominated the
per-tx fee factor. This fact should be of great interest to miners.
On 7/30/2015 7:25 AM, Dave Hudson wrote:
On 30 Jul 2015, at 06:14, Tom Harding via bitcoin-dev
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 10:53 PM, Tom Harding t...@thinlink.com wrote:
On 7/30/2015 11:14 AM, Jorge Timón wrote:
The blocksize limit (your production quota) is necessary for
decentralization, not for having a functioning fee market.
If we can agree that hitting the limit will JUST cause
On Jul 30, 2015, at 5:29 AM, Gavin gavinandre...@gmail.com wrote:
it is hard to have a rational conversation about that when even simple
questions like 'what is s reasonable cost to run a full node' are met with
silence.
Some of the risks are pretty hard to quantify. But I think this
On Jul 30, 2015, at 11:02 AM, Mark Friedenbach via bitcoin-dev
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org wrote:
It is possible for a decentralized system like bitcoin to scale via
distribution in a way that introduces minimal trust, for example by
probabilistic validation and distribution
I am making some corrections to my previous summary
Currently, there are 4 block size BIP by Bitcoin developers:
BIP100 by Jeff:
http://gtf.org/garzik/bitcoin/BIP100-blocksizechangeproposal.pdf
BIP101 by Gavin:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0101.mediawiki
BIP102 by Jeff:
I have been looking up ways to measure decentralization at the moment.
There are some good discussions as they relate to Bitcoin but they are
scattered in different places. I just took over BitcoinStandards.com so
i thought about using that site to post stuff.
Russ
On 7/30/2015 9:25 PM,
I fully expect that new layers will someday allow us to facilitate higher
transaction volumes, though I'm concerned about the current state of the
network and the fact that there are no concrete timelines for the rollout
of aforementioned high volume networks.
As for reasoning behind why users
On Jul 30, 2015 6:20 PM, Gavin Andresen gavinandre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 10:25 AM, Pieter Wuille via bitcoin-dev
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org wrote:
Some things are not included yet, such as a testnet whose size runs
ahead of the main chain, and the inclusion of
On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 11:24 AM, Bryan Bishop via bitcoin-dev
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org wrote:
Because any decentralized system is going to have high transaction costs
and scarcity anyway.
This is a meme that keeps coming up that I think just isn't true.
What other
It is important ro note that even if lightning was never developed, the
block size remains at 1 MB forever and fees rise to 10 usd per transaction,
such high fees are still extremely competitive with non-decentralized
payment systems that have proportional fees. For example, 10 usd is still
lower
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I will jump in just because I feel like it because the questions are
fun and so on. (Of course I am not Gregory)
On 07/29/2015 02:28 PM, Raystonn . via bitcoin-dev wrote:
Gregory, can you please speak to the following points. I would
like a
23 matches
Mail list logo
