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
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 17 August 2015 07:49:21 GMT-07:00, BitMinter operator via bitcoin-dev
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org 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
On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 9:47 PM, Venzen Khaosan ven...@mail.bihthai.net
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
-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
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
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 the size
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.
Peoplehave
On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 11:23 AM, Thomas Zander via bitcoin-dev
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org 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
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 from
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
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 decentralization,
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
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
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org wrote:
The
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
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
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 or
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
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 reasoned
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 data and
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 and the block-finding process
On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 11:31 PM, Thomas Zander via bitcoin-dev
bitcoin-dev
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
: [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
On Aug 11, 2015 8:46 PM, Michael Naber mickey...@gmail.com 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
On Aug 11, 2015 8:55 PM, Michael Naber mickey...@gmail.com 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
On Aug 11, 2015 9:37 PM, Michael Naber mickey...@gmail.com 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
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
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 and the block-finding process
On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 11:31 PM, Thomas Zander via
-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
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
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 gavinandre...@gmail.com
wrote:
I think there are multiple reasons to raise the maximum block size, and
yes, fear of Bad Things Happening
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 mickey...@gmail.com
wrote:
Bitcoin would be better money than current money even if it were a bit
more expensive to transact, simply
: *Mark Friedenbach *Sent:
*Tuesday, 11 August 2015 08:10 *To: *Thomas Zander *Cc: *Bitcoin
Dev *Subject: *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
mailto:bitcoin-dev
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
-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
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org wrote:
On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 11:35
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 it
On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 4:12 PM, Gavin Andresen gavinandre...@gmail.com
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
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
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
On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 2:33 PM, Btc Drak btcd...@gmail.com 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
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
On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 1:33 PM, Jorge Timón jti...@jtimon.cc wrote:
On Aug 7, 2015 5:55 PM, Gavin Andresen gavinandre...@gmail.com 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
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
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 the
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 think it
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
Please try to focus on constructive technical comments.
On 7 August 2015 at 23:12, Thomas Zander via bitcoin-dev
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org wrote:
What will the backlash be when people here that are pushing for off-chain-
transactions fail to produce a properly working alternative,
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? If
On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 11:16 AM, Pieter Wuille pieter.wui...@gmail.com
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
On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 5:55 PM, Gavin Andresen gavinandre...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 11:16 AM, Pieter Wuille pieter.wui...@gmail.com
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
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
On Aug 7, 2015 5:55 PM, Gavin Andresen gavinandre...@gmail.com 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
Pieter Wuille via bitcoin-dev 於 2015-08-07 12:28 寫到:
On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 5:55 PM, Gavin Andresen
gavinandre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 11:16 AM, Pieter Wuille
pieter.wui...@gmail.com wrote:
I guess my question (and perhaps that's what Jorge is after): do
you feel that
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 sounds
...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,
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?
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
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.
That's not
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 arguments
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
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
On 7 Aug 2015, at 16:17, Ryan Butler via bitcoin-dev
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org 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
60 matches
Mail list logo
