Re: Block Size Increase

Re: Block Size Increase
2015-05-06 22:30 ` slush
                   ` (10 more replies)
  
From: Matt Corallo @ 2015-05-06 22:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Bitcoin Dev

Recently there has been a flurry of posts by Gavin at
http://gavinandresen.svbtle.com/ which advocate strongly for increasing
the maximum block size. However, there hasnt been any discussion on this
mailing list in several years as far as I can tell.

Block size is a question to which there is no answer, but which
certainly has a LOT of technical tradeoffs to consider. I know a lot of
people here have varying levels of strong or very strong opinions about
this, and the fact that it is not being discussed in a technical
community publicly anywhere is rather disappointing.

So, at the risk of starting a flamewar, I'll provide a little bait to
get some responses and hope the discussion opens up into an honest
comparison of the tradeoffs here. Certainly a consensus in this kind of
technical community should be a basic requirement for any serious
commitment to blocksize increase.

Personally, I'm rather strongly against any commitment to a block size
increase in the near future. Long-term incentive compatibility requires
that there be some fee pressure, and that blocks be relatively
consistently full or very nearly full. What we see today are
transactions enjoying next-block confirmations with nearly zero pressure
to include any fee at all (though many do because it makes wallet code
simpler).

This allows the well-funded Bitcoin ecosystem to continue building
systems which rely on transactions moving quickly into blocks while
pretending these systems scale. Thus, instead of working on technologies
which bring Bitcoin's trustlessness to systems which scale beyond a
blockchain's necessarily slow and (compared to updating numbers in a
database) expensive settlement, the ecosystem as a whole continues to
focus on building centralized platforms and advocate for changes to
Bitcoin which allow them to maintain the status quo[1].

Matt

[1] https://twitter.com/coinbase/status/595741967759335426



 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2015-05-06 22:12 Matt Corallo

  2015-05-06 23:06   ` Eric Lombrozo
  2015-05-06 22:44 ` Tier Nolan
                   ` (9 subsequent siblings)
  
From: slush @ 2015-05-06 22:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Matt Corallo;  Bitcoin Dev

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2955 bytes --]

I don't have strong opinion @ block size topic.

But if there'll be a fork, PLEASE, include SIGHASH_WITHINPUTVALUE (
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=181734.0) or its alternative. All
developers of lightweight (blockchain-less) clients will adore you!

slush

On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 12:12 AM, Matt Corallo <bitcoin-list@bluematt•me>
wrote:

> Recently there has been a flurry of posts by Gavin at
> http://gavinandresen.svbtle.com/ which advocate strongly for increasing
> the maximum block size. However, there hasnt been any discussion on this
> mailing list in several years as far as I can tell.
>
> Block size is a question to which there is no answer, but which
> certainly has a LOT of technical tradeoffs to consider. I know a lot of
> people here have varying levels of strong or very strong opinions about
> this, and the fact that it is not being discussed in a technical
> community publicly anywhere is rather disappointing.
>
> So, at the risk of starting a flamewar, I'll provide a little bait to
> get some responses and hope the discussion opens up into an honest
> comparison of the tradeoffs here. Certainly a consensus in this kind of
> technical community should be a basic requirement for any serious
> commitment to blocksize increase.
>
> Personally, I'm rather strongly against any commitment to a block size
> increase in the near future. Long-term incentive compatibility requires
> that there be some fee pressure, and that blocks be relatively
> consistently full or very nearly full. What we see today are
> transactions enjoying next-block confirmations with nearly zero pressure
> to include any fee at all (though many do because it makes wallet code
> simpler).
>
> This allows the well-funded Bitcoin ecosystem to continue building
> systems which rely on transactions moving quickly into blocks while
> pretending these systems scale. Thus, instead of working on technologies
> which bring Bitcoin's trustlessness to systems which scale beyond a
> blockchain's necessarily slow and (compared to updating numbers in a
> database) expensive settlement, the ecosystem as a whole continues to
> focus on building centralized platforms and advocate for changes to
> Bitcoin which allow them to maintain the status quo[1].
>
> Matt
>
> [1] https://twitter.com/coinbase/status/595741967759335426
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> One dashboard for servers and applications across Physical-Virtual-Cloud
> Widest out-of-the-box monitoring support with 50+ applications
> Performance metrics, stats and reports that give you Actionable Insights
> Deep dive visibility with transaction tracing using APM Insight.
> http://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/290420510;117567292;y
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3927 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2015-05-06 22:12 Matt Corallo
  2015-05-06 22:30 ` slush

  2015-05-06 23:12   ` Matt Corallo
  2015-05-06 23:11 ` Matt Whitlock
                   ` (8 subsequent siblings)
  
From: Tier Nolan @ 2015-05-06 22:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Matt Corallo;  Bitcoin Dev

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2489 bytes --]

On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 11:12 PM, Matt Corallo <bitcoin-list@bluematt•me>
wrote:

> Personally, I'm rather strongly against any commitment to a block size
> increase in the near future.


Miners can already soft-fork to reduce the maximum block size.  If 51% of
miners agree to a 250kB block size, then that is the maximum block size.

The question being discussed is what is the maximum block size merchants
and users will accept.  This puts a reasonable limit on the maximum size
miners can increase the block size to.

In effect, the block size is set by the minimum of the miner's and the
merchants/user's size.min(miner, merchants/users).


> This allows the well-funded Bitcoin ecosystem to continue building
> systems which rely on transactions moving quickly into blocks while
> pretending these systems scale. Thus, instead of working on technologies
> which bring Bitcoin's trustlessness to systems which scale beyond a
> blockchain's necessarily slow and (compared to updating numbers in a
> database) expensive settlement, the ecosystem as a whole continues to
> focus on building centralized platforms and advocate for changes to
> Bitcoin which allow them to maintain the status quo[1].
>

Would you accept a rule that the maximum size is 20MB (doubling every 2
years), but that miners have an efficient method for choosing a lower size?

If miners could specify the maximum block size in their block headers, then
they could coordinate to adjust the block size.  If 75% vote to lower the
size, then it is lowered and vice versa for raiding.

Every 2016 blocks, the votes are counter.  If the 504th lowest of the 2016
blocks is higher than the previous size, then the size is set to that
size.  Similarly, if the 504th highest is lower than the previous size, it
becomes the new size.

There could be 2 default trajectories.  The reference client might always
vote to double the size every 4 years.

To handle large blocks (>32MB) requires a change to the p2p protocol
message size limits, or a way to split blocks over multiple messages.

It would be nice to add new features to any hard-fork.

I favour adding an auxiliary header.  The Merkle root in the header could
be replaced with hash(merkle_root | hash(aux_header)).  This is a fairly
simple change, but helps with things like commitments.  One of the fields
in the auxiliary header could be an extra nonce field.  This would mean
fast regeneration of the merkle root for ASIC miners.  This is a pretty
simple change.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3197 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2015-05-06 22:30 ` slush

  
From: Eric Lombrozo @ 2015-05-06 23:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: slush;  Bitcoin Dev


[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4506 bytes --]

I don’t really have a strong opinion on block size either…but if we’re going to do a hard fork, let’s use this as an opportunity to create a good process for hard forks (which we’ll inevitably need to do again in the future). The change in block size is a very simple change that still allows us to explore all the complexities involved with deployment of hard forks. Let’s not just do a one-off ad-hoc thing.

- Eric Lombrozo

> On May 6, 2015, at 3:30 PM, slush <slush@centrum•cz> wrote:
> 
> I don't have strong opinion @ block size topic.
> 
> But if there'll be a fork, PLEASE, include SIGHASH_WITHINPUTVALUE (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=181734.0 <https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=181734.0>) or its alternative. All developers of lightweight (blockchain-less) clients will adore you!
> 
> slush
> 
> On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 12:12 AM, Matt Corallo <bitcoin-list@bluematt•me <mailto:bitcoin-list@bluematt•me>> wrote:
> Recently there has been a flurry of posts by Gavin at
> http://gavinandresen.svbtle.com/ <http://gavinandresen.svbtle.com/> which advocate strongly for increasing
> the maximum block size. However, there hasnt been any discussion on this
> mailing list in several years as far as I can tell.
> 
> Block size is a question to which there is no answer, but which
> certainly has a LOT of technical tradeoffs to consider. I know a lot of
> people here have varying levels of strong or very strong opinions about
> this, and the fact that it is not being discussed in a technical
> community publicly anywhere is rather disappointing.
> 
> So, at the risk of starting a flamewar, I'll provide a little bait to
> get some responses and hope the discussion opens up into an honest
> comparison of the tradeoffs here. Certainly a consensus in this kind of
> technical community should be a basic requirement for any serious
> commitment to blocksize increase.
> 
> Personally, I'm rather strongly against any commitment to a block size
> increase in the near future. Long-term incentive compatibility requires
> that there be some fee pressure, and that blocks be relatively
> consistently full or very nearly full. What we see today are
> transactions enjoying next-block confirmations with nearly zero pressure
> to include any fee at all (though many do because it makes wallet code
> simpler).
> 
> This allows the well-funded Bitcoin ecosystem to continue building
> systems which rely on transactions moving quickly into blocks while
> pretending these systems scale. Thus, instead of working on technologies
> which bring Bitcoin's trustlessness to systems which scale beyond a
> blockchain's necessarily slow and (compared to updating numbers in a
> database) expensive settlement, the ecosystem as a whole continues to
> focus on building centralized platforms and advocate for changes to
> Bitcoin which allow them to maintain the status quo[1].
> 
> Matt
> 
> [1] https://twitter.com/coinbase/status/595741967759335426 <https://twitter.com/coinbase/status/595741967759335426>
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> One dashboard for servers and applications across Physical-Virtual-Cloud
> Widest out-of-the-box monitoring support with 50+ applications
> Performance metrics, stats and reports that give you Actionable Insights
> Deep dive visibility with transaction tracing using APM Insight.
> http://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/290420510;117567292;y <http://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/290420510;117567292;y>
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net <mailto:Bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net>
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> One dashboard for servers and applications across Physical-Virtual-Cloud
> Widest out-of-the-box monitoring support with 50+ applications
> Performance metrics, stats and reports that give you Actionable Insights
> Deep dive visibility with transaction tracing using APM Insight.
> http://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/290420510;117567292;y_______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development


[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 6320 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 842 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
* 
  2015-05-06 22:12 Matt Corallo
                   ` 
  2015-05-06 23:11 ` 

  2015-05-07  0:07 ` Bryan Bishop
                   ` (6 subsequent siblings)
  10 siblings, 0 replies; 115+ messages in thread
From: Tom Harding @ 2015-05-07  0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Matt Corrallo;  Bitcoin Development

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1180 bytes --]

On 5/6/2015 3:12 PM, Matt Corallo wrote:
> Long-term incentive compatibility requires
> that there be some fee pressure, and that blocks be relatively
> consistently full or very nearly full.

I think it's way too early to even consider a future era when the fiat 
value of the block reward is no longer the biggest-by-far mining incentive.

Creating fee pressure means driving some people to choose something 
else, not bitcoin. "Too many people using bitcoin" is nowhere on the 
list of problems today.  It's reckless to tinker with adoption in hopes 
of spurring innovation on speculation, while a "can kick" is available.

Adoption is currently at miniscule, test-flight, relatively 
insignificant levels when compared to global commerce.  As Gavin 
discussed in the article, under "Block size and miner fees… again," the 
best way to maximize miner incentives is to focus on doing things that 
are likely to increase adoption, which, in our fiat-dominated world, 
lead to a justifiably increased exchange rate.

Any innovation attractive enough to relieve the block size pressure will 
do so just as well without artificial stimulus.

Thanks for kicking off the discussion.


[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1591 bytes --]

^ permalink raw reply	[|nested] 115+ messages in thread
2015-05-06 22:44 ` Tier Nolan

  2015-05-06 23:33     ` Tier Nolan
  
From: Matt Corallo @ 2015-05-06 23:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Tier Nolan;  Bitcoin Dev

Replies inline.

On 05/06/15 22:44, Tier Nolan wrote:
> On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 11:12 PM, Matt Corallo <bitcoin-list@bluematt•me
> <mailto:bitcoin-list@bluematt•me>> wrote:
>     Personally, I'm rather strongly against any commitment to a block size
>     increase in the near future.
-snip-
> The question being discussed is what is the maximum block size merchants
> and users will accept.  This puts a reasonable limit on the maximum size
> miners can increase the block size to.
> 
> In effect, the block size is set by the minimum of the miner's and the
> merchants/user's size.min(miner, merchants/users).

Indeed, "the bitcoin community of users and miners can decide to do
whatever they want", but this is univeral - "they" could decide whatever
they want if "they" want to hardfork. That said, "we" should be having a
rigorous technical discussion about whether it is sane to recommend a
given course of action by releasing software which makes it happen.

> 
>     This allows the well-funded Bitcoin ecosystem to continue building
>     systems which rely on transactions moving quickly into blocks while
>     pretending these systems scale. Thus, instead of working on technologies
>     which bring Bitcoin's trustlessness to systems which scale beyond a
>     blockchain's necessarily slow and (compared to updating numbers in a
>     database) expensive settlement, the ecosystem as a whole continues to
>     focus on building centralized platforms and advocate for changes to
>     Bitcoin which allow them to maintain the status quo[1].
> 
> 
> Would you accept a rule that the maximum size is 20MB (doubling every 2
> years), but that miners have an efficient method for choosing a lower size?
> 
> If miners could specify the maximum block size in their block headers,
> then they could coordinate to adjust the block size.  If 75% vote to
> lower the size, then it is lowered and vice versa for raiding.
> 
> Every 2016 blocks, the votes are counter.  If the 504th lowest of the
> 2016 blocks is higher than the previous size, then the size is set to
> that size.  Similarly, if the 504th highest is lower than the previous
> size, it becomes the new size.
> 
> There could be 2 default trajectories.  The reference client might
> always vote to double the size every 4 years.
> 
> To handle large blocks (>32MB) requires a change to the p2p protocol
> message size limits, or a way to split blocks over multiple messages.
> 
> It would be nice to add new features to any hard-fork.
> 
> I favour adding an auxiliary header.  The Merkle root in the header
> could be replaced with hash(merkle_root | hash(aux_header)).  This is a
> fairly simple change, but helps with things like commitments.  One of
> the fields in the auxiliary header could be an extra nonce field.  This
> would mean fast regeneration of the merkle root for ASIC miners.  This
> is a pretty simple change.

The point of the hard block size limit is exactly because giving miners
free rule to do anything they like with their blocks would allow them to
do any number of crazy attacks. The incentives for miners to pick block
sizes are no where near compatible with what allows the network to
continue to run in a decentralized manner.



 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2015-05-06 23:11 ` Matt Whitlock

  
From: Matt Corallo @ 2015-05-06 23:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Matt Whitlock, bitcoin-development

For now, lets leave the discussion to JUST the block size increase. If
it helps - everyone should assume that their pet feature is included in
a hard fork or, if you prefer, that no other features are included in a
hard fork.

On 05/06/15 23:11, Matt Whitlock wrote:
> I'm not so much opposed to a block size increase as I am opposed to a hard fork. My problem with a hard fork is that everyone and their brother wants to seize the opportunity of a hard fork to insert their own pet feature, and such a mad rush of lightly considered, obscure feature additions would be extremely risky for Bitcoin. If it could be guaranteed that raising the block size limit would be the only incompatible change introduced in the hard fork, then I would support it, but I strongly fear that the hard fork itself will become an excuse to change other aspects of the system in ways that will have unintended and possibly disastrous consequences.
> 



 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2015-05-06 23:12   ` Matt Corallo

  2015-05-06 23:41       ` Matt Corallo
  
From: Tier Nolan @ 2015-05-06 23:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
  Cc: Bitcoin Dev

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 909 bytes --]

On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 12:12 AM, Matt Corallo <bitcoin-list@bluematt•me>
wrote:

> The point of the hard block size limit is exactly because giving miners
> free rule to do anything they like with their blocks would allow them to
> do any number of crazy attacks. The incentives for miners to pick block
> sizes are no where near compatible with what allows the network to
> continue to run in a decentralized manner.
>

Miners can always reduce the block size (if they coordinate).  Increasing
the maximum block size doesn't necessarily cause an increase.  A majority
of miners can soft-fork to set the limit lower than the hard limit.

Setting the hard-fork limit higher means that a soft fork can be used to
adjust the limit in the future.

The reference client would accept blocks above the soft limit for wallet
purposes, but not build on them.  Blocks above the hard limit would be
rejected completely.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1285 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2015-05-06 23:33     ` Tier Nolan

  2015-05-07  2:16         ` Peter Todd
  
From: Matt Corallo @ 2015-05-06 23:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Tier Nolan;  Bitcoin Dev



On 05/06/15 23:33, Tier Nolan wrote:
> On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 12:12 AM, Matt Corallo <bitcoin-list@bluematt•me
> <mailto:bitcoin-list@bluematt•me>> wrote:
> 
>     The point of the hard block size limit is exactly because giving miners
>     free rule to do anything they like with their blocks would allow them to
>     do any number of crazy attacks. The incentives for miners to pick block
>     sizes are no where near compatible with what allows the network to
>     continue to run in a decentralized manner.
> 
> 
> Miners can always reduce the block size (if they coordinate). 
> Increasing the maximum block size doesn't necessarily cause an
> increase.  A majority of miners can soft-fork to set the limit lower
> than the hard limit.

Sure, of course.

> Setting the hard-fork limit higher means that a soft fork can be used to
> adjust the limit in the future. 
> 
> The reference client would accept blocks above the soft limit for wallet
> purposes, but not build on them.  Blocks above the hard limit would be
> rejected completely.

Yes, but this does NOT make an actual policy. Note that the vast
majority of miners already apply their own patches to Bitcoin Core, so
applying one more is not all that hard. When blocks start to become
limited (ie there is any fee left on the table by transactions not
included in a block) there becomes incentive for miners to change that
behavior pretty quick. Not just that, the vast majority of the hashpower
is behind very large miners, who have little to no decentralization
pressure. This results in very incompatible incentives, mainly that the
incentive would be for the large miners to interconnect in a private
network and generate only maximum-size blocks, creating a strong
centralization pressure in the network.



 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
* 
  2015-05-06 22:12 Matt Corallo
                   ` 
  2015-05-07  0:00 ` 

  2015-05-07  0:37 ` Gregory Maxwell
                   ` (5 subsequent siblings)
  10 siblings, 0 replies; 115+ messages in thread
From: Bryan Bishop @ 2015-05-07  0:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Matt Corallo, Bryan Bishop;  Bitcoin Dev

On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 5:12 PM, Matt Corallo <bitcoin-list@bluematt•me> wrote:
> the maximum block size. However, there hasnt been any discussion on this
> mailing list in several years as far as I can tell.

Well, there has been significant public discussion in #bitcoin-wizards
on irc.freenode.net which is available in public logs, specifically
about why increasing the max block size is kicking the can down the
road while possibly compromising blockchain security. There were many
excellent objections that were raised that, sadly, I see are not
referenced at all in the recent media blitz. Frankly I can't help but
feel that if contributions, like those from #bitcoin-wizards, have
been ignored in lieu of technical analysis, and the absence of
discussion on this mailing list, that I feel perhaps there are other
subtle and extremely important technical details that are completely
absent from this--and other-- proposals. I have some rather general
thoughts to offer.

Secured decentralization is the most important and most interesting
property of bitcoin. Everything else is rather trivial and could be
achieved millions of times more efficiently with conventional
technology. Our technical work should be informed by the technical
nature of the system we have constructed.

I suspect that as bitcoin continues to grow in all dimensions and
metrics, that we will see an unending wave of those who are excited by
the idea of Something Different in the face of archaic, crumbling
software and procedures in the rest of the financial world. Money has
found its way into every aspect of human life. There's no doubt in my
mind that bitcoin will always see the most extreme campaigns and the
most extreme misunderstandings. Like moths to a flame or water in the
desert, almost everyone is excited by ANY status quo change
whatsoever. This is something that we have to be vigilante about,
because their excitement is motivation to do excellent work, not
simply any work. For some who are excited about general status quo
changes that bitcoin represents, they may not mind if bitcoin
decentralization disappears and is replaced with just a handful of
centralized nodes. Whereas for development purposes we must hold
ourselves to extremely high standards before proposing changes,
especially to the public, that have the potential to be unsafe and
economically unsafe. We have examples from NASA about how to engineer
extremely fault tolerant systems, and we have examples from Linux
about how to have high standards in open-source projects. Safety is
absolutely critical, even in the face of seemingly irrational
excuberance of others who want to scale to trillions of daily coffee
transactions individually stored forever in the blockchain.

When designing bitcoin or even some other system, an important design
target is what the system should be capable of. How many transactions
should the system perform? What is the correct number of transactions
for a healthy, modern civilization to perform every day? And how fast
should that (not) grow? Should we allow for 2 billion trillion coffee
transactions every day, or what about 100 trillion transactions per
second? I suspect that these sorts of questions are entirely
unanswerable and boring. So in the absence of technical targets to
reach during the design phase, I suspect that Jeff Garzik was right
when he pointed out a few months ago that bitcoin is good at
settlement and clearing. There are many potential technical solutions
for aggregating millions (trillions?) of transactions into tiny
bundles. As a small proof-of-concept, imagine two parties sending
transactions back and forth 100 million times. Instead of recording
every transaction, you could record the start state and the end state,
and end up with two transactions or less. That's a 100 million fold,
without modifying max block size and without potentially compromising
secured decentralization.

The MIT group should listen up and get to work figuring out how to
measure decentralization and its security :-). Maybe we should be
collectively pestering Andrew Miller to do this, too. No pressure,
dude. Getting this measurement right would be really beneficial
because we would have a more academic and technical understanding to
work with. I would also characterize this as high priority next to the
"formally verified correctness proofs for Script and
libbitcoinconsensus".

Also, I think that getting this out in the open on this mailing list
is an excellent step forward.

- Bryan
http://heybryan.org/
1 512 203 0507



^ permalink raw reply	[|nested] 115+ messages in thread
* 
  2015-05-06 22:12 Matt Corallo
                   ` 
  2015-05-07  0:07 ` 

  2015-05-07  1:49 ` Peter Todd
                   ` (4 subsequent siblings)
  10 siblings, 0 replies; 115+ messages in thread
From: Gregory Maxwell @ 2015-05-07  0:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Matt Corallo;  Bitcoin Dev

On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 10:12 PM, Matt Corallo <bitcoin-list@bluematt•me>
wrote: > Recently there has been a flurry of posts by Gavin at >
http://gavinandresen.svbtle.com/ which advocate strongly for increasing >
the maximum block size. However, there hasnt been any discussion on this >
mailing list in several years as far as I can tell.

Thanks Matt; I was actually really confused by this sudden push with
not a word here or on Github--so much so that I responded on Reddit to
people pointing to commits in Gavin's personal repository saying they
were reading too much into it.

So please forgive me for the more than typical disorganization in this
message; I've been caught a bit flatfooted on this and I'm trying to
catch up. I'm juggling a fair amount of sudden pressure in my mailbox,
and trying to navigate complex discussions in about eight different
forums concurrently.

There have been about a kazillion pages of discussion elsewhere
(e.g. public IRC and Bitcointalk; private discussions in the past),
not all of which is well known, and I can't hope to summarize even a
tiny fraction of it in a single message-- but that's no reason to not
start on it.

> Block size is a question to which there is no answer, but which >
certainly has a LOT of technical tradeoffs to consider.

There are several orthogonal angles from which block size is a concern
(both increases and non-increases). Most of them have subtle implications
and each are worth its own research paper or six, so it can be difficult
to only touch them slightly without creating a gish gallop that is hard
to respond to.

We're talking about tuning one of the fundamental scarcities of the
Bitcoin Economy and cryptosystem--leaving the comfort of "rule by
math" and venturing into the space of political decisions; elsewhere
you'd expect to see really in-depth neutral analysis of the risks and
tradeoffs, technically and economically.  And make no mistake: there
are real tradeoffs here, though we don't know their exact contours.

Fundamentally this question exposes ideological differences between people
interested in Bitcoin.  Is Bitcoin more of a digital gold or is it more
of a competitor to Square?  Is Bitcoin something that should improve
personal and commercial autonomy from central banks?  From commercial
banks? Or from just the existing status-quo commercial banks?   What are
people's fundamental rights with Bitcoin?  Do participants have a
right to mine? How much control should third parties have over their
transactions?  How much security must be provided? Is there a deadline
for world domination or bust?  Is Bitcoin only for the developed world?
Must it be totally limited by the most impoverished parts of the world?

Bitcoin exists at the intersection of many somewhat overlapping belief
systems--and people of many views can find that Bitcoin meets their
needs even when they don't completely agree politically.  When Bitcoin
is changed fundamentally, via a hard fork, to have different properties,
the change can create winners or losers (if nothing else, then in terms
of the kind of ideology supported by it).

There are non-trivial number of people who hold extremes on any of
these general belief patterns; Even among the core developers there is
not a consensus on Bitcoin's optimal role in society and the commercial
marketplace.

To make it clear how broad the views go, even without getting into
monetary policy... some people even argue that Bitcoin should act
as censor-resistant storage system for outlawed content; -- I think
this view is unsound, not achievable with the technology, and largely
incompatible with Bitcoin's use as a money (because it potentially
creates an externalized legal/harassment liability for node operators);
but these are my personal value judgments; the view is earnestly held
by more than a few; and that's a group that certainly wants the largest
possible blocksizes (though even then that won't be enough).

The subject is complicated even more purely on the technical side
by the fact that Bitcoin has a layered security model which is not
completely defined or understood: Bitcoin is secure if a majority of
hashrate is "honest" (where "honesty" is a technical term which means
"follows the right rules" without fail, even at a loss), but why might
it be honest? That sends us into complex economic and social arguments,
and the security thresholds start becoming worse when we assume some
miners are economically rational instead of "honest".

> increase in the near future. Long-term incentive compatibility requires
> that there be some fee pressure, and that blocks be relatively >
consistently full or very nearly full. What we see today are

To elaborate, in my view there is a at least a two fold concern on this
particular ("Long term Mining incentives") front:

One is that the long-held argument is that security of the Bitcoin system
in the long term depends on fee income funding autonomous, anonymous,
decentralized miners profitably applying enough hash-power to make
reorganizations infeasible.

For fees to achieve this purpose, there seemingly must be an effective
scarcity of capacity.  The fact that verifying and transmitting
transactions has a cost isn't enough, because all the funds go to pay
that cost and none to the POW "artificial" cost; e.g., if verification
costs 1 then the market price for fees should converge to 1, and POW
cost will converge towards zero because they adapt to whatever is
being applied. Moreover, the transmission and verification costs can
be perfectly amortized by using large centralized pools (and efficient
differential block transmission like the "O(1)" idea) as you can verify
one time instead of N times, so to the extent that verification/bandwidth
is a non-negligible cost to miners at all, it's a strong pressure to
centralize.  You can understand this intuitively: think for example of
carbon credit cap-and-trade: the trade part doesn't work without an
actual cap; if everyone was born with a 1000 petaton carbon balance,
the market price for credits would be zero and the program couldn't hope
to share behavior. In the case of mining, we're trying to optimize the
social good of POW security. (But the analogy applies in other ways too:
increases to the chain side are largely an externality; miners enjoy the
benefits, everyone else takes the costs--either in reduced security or
higher node operating else.)

This area has been subject to a small amount of academic research
(e.g. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2400519). But
there is still much that is unclear.

The second is that when subsidy has fallen well below fees, the incentive
to move the blockchain forward goes away.  An optimal rational miner
would be best off forking off the current best block in order to capture
its fees, rather than moving the blockchain forward, until they hit
the maximum. That's where the "backlog" comment comes from, since when
there is a sufficient backlog it's better to go forward.  I'm not aware
of specific research into this subquestion; it's somewhat fuzzy because
of uncertainty about the security model. If we try to say that Bitcoin
should work even in the face of most miners being profit-maximizing
instead of altruistically-honest, we must assume the chain will not
more forward so long as a block isn't full.  In reality there is more
altruism than zero; there are public pressures; there is laziness, etc.

One potential argument is that maybe miners would be _regulated_ to
behave correctly. But this would require undermining the openness of the
system--where anyone can mine anonymously--in order to enforce behavior,
and that same enforcement mechanism would leave a political level to
impose additional rules that violate the extra properties of the system.

So far the mining ecosystem has become incredibly centralized over time.
I believe I am the only remaining committer who mines, and only a few
of the regular contributors to Bitcoin Core do. Many participants
have never mined or only did back in 2010/2011... we've basically
ignored the mining ecosystem, and this has had devastating effects,
causing a latent undermining of the security model: hacking a dozen or
so computers--operated under totally unknown and probably not strong
security policies--could compromise the network at least at the tip...
Rightfully we should be regarding this an an emergency, and probably
should have been have since 2011.  This doesn't bode well for our ability
to respond if a larger blocksize goes poorly. In kicking the can with
the trivial change to just bump the size, are we making an implicit
decision to go down a path that has a conclusion we don't want?

(There are also shorter term mining incentives concerns; which Peter
Todd has written more about, that I'll omit for now)

> pretending these systems scale. Thus, instead of working on technologies
> which bring Bitcoin's trustlessness to systems which scale beyond a

I made a few relevant points back in 2011
(https://en.bitcoin.it/w/index.php?title=Scalability&action=historysubmit&diff=14273&oldid=14112)
after Dan Kaminsky argued that Bitcoin's decentralization was pretext:
that it was patently centralized since scaling directly in the network
would undermine decentralization, that the Bitcoin network necessarily
makes particular tradeoffs which prevent it from concurrently being all
things to all people.  But tools like the Lightning network proposal could
well allow us to hit a greater spectrum of demands at once--including
secure zero-confirmation (something that larger blocksizes reduce if
anything), which is important for many applications.  With the right
technology I believe we can have our cake and eat it too, but there needs
to be a reason to build it; the security and decentralization level of
Bitcoin imposes a _hard_ upper limit on anything that can be based on it.

Another key point here is that the small bumps in blocksize which
wouldn't clearly knock the system into a largely centralized mode--small
constants--are small enough that they don't quantitatively change the
operation of the system; they don't open up new applications that aren't
possible today. Deathandtaxes on the forum argued that Bitcoin needs
a several hundred megabyte blocksize to directly meet the worldwide
transaction needs _without retail_... Why without retail? Retail needs
near instant soft security, which cannot be achieved directly with a
global decentralized blockchain.

I don't think 1MB is magic; it always exists relative to widely-deployed
technology, sociology, and economics. But these factors aren't a simple
function; the procedure I'd prefer would be something like this: if there
is a standing backlog, we-the-community of users look to indicators to
gauge if the network is losing decentralization and then double the
hard limit with proper controls to allow smooth adjustment without
fees going to zero (see the past proposals for automatic block size
controls that let miners increase up to a hard maximum over the median
if they mine at quadratically harder difficulty), and we don't increase
if it appears it would be at a substantial increase in centralization
risk. Hardfork changes should only be made if they're almost completely
uncontroversial--where virtually everyone can look at the available data
and say "yea, that isn't undermining my property rights or future use
of Bitcoin; it's no big deal".  Unfortunately, every indicator I can
think of except fee totals has been going in the wrong direction almost
monotonically along with the blockchain size increase since 2012 when
we started hitting full blocks and responded by increasing the default
soft target.  This is frustrating; from a clean slate analysis of network
health I think my conclusion would be to _decrease_ the limit below the
current 300k/txn/day level.

This is obviously not acceptable, so instead many people--myself
included--have been working feverishly hard behind the scenes on Bitcoin
Core to increase the scalability.  This work isn't small-potatoes
boring software engineering stuff; I mean even my personal contributions
include things like inventing a wholly new generic algebraic optimization
applicable to all EC signature schemes that increases performance by 4%,
and that is before getting into the R&D stuff that hasn't really borne
fruit yet, like fraud proofs.  Today Bitcoin Core is easily >100 times
faster to synchronize and relay than when I first got involved on the
same hardware, but these improvements have been swallowed by the growth.
The ironic thing is that our frantic efforts to keep ahead and not
lose decentralization have both not been enough (by the best measures,
full node usage is the lowest its been since 2011 even though the user
base is huge now) and yet also so much that people could seriously talk
about increasing the block size to something gigantic like 20MB. This
sounds less reasonable when you realize that even at 1MB we'd likely
have a smoking hole in the ground if not for existing enormous efforts
to make scaling not come at a loss of decentralization.


I'm curious as to what discussions people have seen; e.g., are people
even here aware of these concerns? Are you aware of things like the
hashcash mediated dynamic blocksize limiting?  About proposals like
lightning network (instant transactions and massive scale, in exchange
for some short term DOS risk if a counterparty opts out)?   Do people
(other than Mike Hearn; I guess) think a future where everyone depends
on a small number of "Google scale" node operations for the system is
actually okay? (I think not, and if so we're never going to agree--but
it can be helpful to understand when a disagreement is ideological).



^ permalink raw reply	[|nested] 115+ messages in thread
* 
  2015-05-06 22:12 Matt Corallo
                   ` 
  2015-05-07  0:37 ` 

  2015-05-07  3:03   ` Justus Ranvier
  2015-05-08 11:02   ` Thomas Zander
  2015-05-07  3:47 ` Pieter Wuille
                   ` (3 subsequent siblings)
  10 siblings, 2 replies; 115+ messages in thread
From: Peter Todd @ 2015-05-07  1:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Matt Corallo;  Bitcoin Dev

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4393 bytes --]

On Wed, May 06, 2015 at 10:12:14PM +0000, Matt Corallo wrote:
> Personally, I'm rather strongly against any commitment to a block size
> increase in the near future. Long-term incentive compatibility requires
> that there be some fee pressure, and that blocks be relatively
> consistently full or very nearly full. What we see today are
> transactions enjoying next-block confirmations with nearly zero pressure
> to include any fee at all (though many do because it makes wallet code
> simpler).

Agreed.

I'm not sure if you've seen this, but a good paper on this topic was
published recently: "The Economics of Bitcoin Transaction Fees"

    Abstract
    --------

    We study the economics of Bitcoin transaction fees in a simple static
    partial equilibrium model with the specificity that the system security
    is directly linked to the total computational power of miners. We show
    that any situation with a fixed fee is equivalent to another situation
    with a limited block size. In both cases, we give the optimal value of
    the transaction fee or of the block size. We also show that making the
    block size a non binding constraint and, in the same time, letting the
    fee be fixed as the outcome of a decentralized competitive market cannot
    guarantee the very existence of Bitcoin in the long-term.

-http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2400519

In short, without either a fixed blocksize or fixed fee per transaction
Bitcoin will will not survive as there is no viable way to pay for PoW
security. The latter option - fixed fee per transaction - is non-trivial
to implement in a way that's actually meaningful - it's easy to give
miners "kickbacks" - leaving us with a fixed blocksize.

> This allows the well-funded Bitcoin ecosystem to continue building
> systems which rely on transactions moving quickly into blocks while
> pretending these systems scale. Thus, instead of working on technologies

I think this lack of understanding of the limitations of blockchain tech
is very dangerous, never mind, downright misleading. I keep running into
startups at conferences with completely unrealistic ideas about how
large they'll be able to grow their on-blockchain businesses. For
example, a few weeks ago at the Stanford blockchain conference I spoke
to a company planning on using multisig escrow contracts to settle
financial instruments, and expected to be doing about as many
transactions/day on the blockchain for their business within a year or
so as all other Bitcoin users currently do combined. These guys quite
frankly had no understanding of the issues, and had apparently based
their plans on the highly optimistic Bitcoin wiki page on
scalability.(1) (I'd fix this now, but the wiki seems to not be allowing
logins)

We'd do a lot of startups a lot of good to give them accurate, and
honest, advice about the scalability of the system. The wiki definitely
isn't that. Neither is the bitcoin.org developer documentation(2), which
doesn't mention scalability at all.

> which bring Bitcoin's trustlessness to systems which scale beyond a
> blockchain's necessarily slow and (compared to updating numbers in a
> database) expensive settlement, the ecosystem as a whole continues to
> focus on building centralized platforms and advocate for changes to
> Bitcoin which allow them to maintain the status quo[1].

Even a relatively small increase to 20MB will greatly reduce the number
of people who can participate fully in Bitcoin, creating an environment
where the next increase requires the consent of an even smaller portion
of the Bitcoin ecosystem. Where does that stop? What's the proposed
mechanism that'll create an incentive and social consensus to not just
'kick the can down the road'(3) and further centralize but actually
scale up Bitcoin the hard way? The only proposal that I've seen that
attempts to do this is John Dillon's proof-of-stake blocksize vote(4),
and that is far from getting consensus.

1) https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Scalability
2) https://bitcoin.org/en/developer-guide
3) http://gavinandresen.ninja/it-must-be-done-but-is-not-a-panacea
4) http://www.mail-archive.com/bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net/msg02323.html

-- 
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
000000000000000004dc867e4541315090329f45ed4dd30e2fd7423a38a72c0e

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 650 bytes --]

^ permalink raw reply	[|nested] 115+ messages in thread
* 
  2015-05-06 22:12 Matt Corallo
                   ` 
  2015-05-07  1:49 ` 

  2015-05-07  9:25 ` Mike Hearn
                   ` (2 subsequent siblings)
  10 siblings, 0 replies; 115+ messages in thread
From: Pieter Wuille @ 2015-05-07  3:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Matt Corallo;  Bitcoin Dev

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 6231 bytes --]

On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 12:12 AM, Matt Corallo <bitcoin-list@bluematt•me>
wrote:

> Recently there has been a flurry of posts by Gavin at
> http://gavinandresen.svbtle.com/ which advocate strongly for increasing
> the maximum block size. However, there hasnt been any discussion on this
> mailing list in several years as far as I can tell.
>

Thanks for bringing this up. I'll try to keep my arguments brief, to avoid
a long wall of text. I may be re-iterating some things that have been said
before, though.

I am - in general - in favor of increasing the size blocks: as technology
grows, there is no reason why the systems built on them can't scale
proportionally. I have so far not commented much about this, in a hope to
avoid getting into a public debate, but the way seems to be going now,
worries me greatly.

* Controversial hard forks. I hope the mailing list here today already
proves it is a controversial issue. Independent of personal opinions pro or
against, I don't think we can do a hard fork that is controversial in
nature. Either the result is effectively a fork, and pre-existing coins can
be spent once on both sides (effectively failing Bitcoin's primary
purpose), or the result is one side forced to upgrade to something they
dislike - effectively giving a power to developers they should never have.
Quoting someone: "I did not sign up to be part of a central banker's
committee".

* The reason for increasing is "need". If "we need more space in blocks" is
the reason to do an upgrade, it won't stop after 20 MB. There is nothing
fundamental possible with 20 MB blocks that isn't with 1 MB blocks.
Changetip does not put their microtransactions on the chain, not with 1 MB,
and I doubt they would with 20 MB blocks. The reason for increase should be
"because we choose to accept the trade-offs".

* Misrepresentation of the trade-offs. You can argue all you want that none
of the effects of larger blocks are particularly damaging, so everything is
fine. They will damage something (see below for details), and we should
analyze these effects, and be honest about them, and present them as a
trade-off made we choose to make to scale the system better. If you just
ask people if they want more transactions, of course you'll hear yes. If
you ask people if they want to pay less taxes, I'm sure the vast majority
will agree as well.

* Miner centralization. There is currently, as far as I know, no technology
that can relay and validate 20 MB blocks across the planet, in a manner
fast enough to avoid very significant costs to mining. There is work in
progress on this (including Gavin's IBLT-based relay, or Greg's block
network coding), but I don't think we should be basing the future of the
economics of the system on undemonstrated ideas. Without those (or even
with), the result may be that miners self-limit the size of their blocks to
propagate faster, but if this happens, larger, better-connected, and more
centrally-located groups of miners gain a competitive advantage by being
able to produce larger blocks. I would like to point out that there is
nothing evil about this - a simple feedback to determine an optimal block
size for an individual miner will result in larger blocks for better
connected hash power. If we do not want miners to have this ability, "we"
(as in: those using full nodes) should demand limitations that prevent it.
One such limitation is a block size limit (whatever it is).

* Ability to use a full node. I very much dislike the trend of people
saying "we need to encourage people to run full nodes, in order to make the
network more decentralized". Running 1000 nodes which are otherwise unused
only gives some better ability for full nodes to download the block chain,
or for SPV nodes to learn about transactions (or be Sybil-attacked...).
However, *using* a full node for validating your business (or personal!)
transactions empowers you to using a financial system that requires less
trust in *anyone* (not even in a decentralized group of peers) than
anything else. Moreover, using a full node is what given you power of the
systems' rules, as anyone who wants to change it now needs to convince you
to upgrade. And yes, 20 MB blocks will change people's ability to use full
nodes, even if the costs are small.

* Skewed incentives for improvements. I think I can personally say that I'm
responsible for most of the past years' performance improvements in Bitcoin
Core. And there is a lot of room for improvement left there - things like
silly waiting loops, single-threaded network processing, huge memory sinks,
lock contention, ... which in my opinion don't nearly get the attention
they deserve. This is in addition to more pervasive changes like optimizing
the block transfer protocol, support for orthogonal systems with a
different security/scalability trade-off like Lightning, making full
validation optional, ... Call me cynical, but without actual pressure to
work on these, I doubt much will change. Increasing the size of blocks now
will simply make it cheap enough to continue business as usual for a while
- while forcing a massive cost increase (and not just a monetary one) on
the entire ecosystem.

* Fees and long-term incentives. I put this last, not because I don't think
it is not serious, but because I don't understand nearly enough about it.
I'll let others comment.

I don't think 1 MB is optimal. Block size is a compromise between
scalability of transactions and verifiability of the system. A system with
10 transactions per day that is verifiable by a pocket calculator is not
useful, as it would only serve a few large bank's settlements. A system
which can deal with every coffee bought on the planet, but requires a
Google-scale data center to verify is also not useful, as it would be
trivially out-competed by a VISA-like design. The usefulness needs in a
balance, and there is no optimal choice for everyone. We can choose where
that balance lies, but we must accept that this is done as a trade-off, and
that that trade-off will have costs such as hardware costs, decreasing
anonymity, less independence, smaller target audience for people able to
fully validate, ...

Choose wisely.

Thanks for reading this,

-- 
Pieter

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 7013 bytes --]

^ permalink raw reply	[|nested] 115+ messages in thread
2015-05-06 23:41       ` Matt Corallo

  
From: Peter Todd @ 2015-05-07  2:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Matt Corallo;  Bitcoin Dev

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1923 bytes --]

On Wed, May 06, 2015 at 11:41:37PM +0000, Matt Corallo wrote:
> Yes, but this does NOT make an actual policy. Note that the vast
> majority of miners already apply their own patches to Bitcoin Core, so
> applying one more is not all that hard. When blocks start to become
> limited (ie there is any fee left on the table by transactions not
> included in a block) there becomes incentive for miners to change that
> behavior pretty quick. Not just that, the vast majority of the hashpower
> is behind very large miners, who have little to no decentralization
> pressure. This results in very incompatible incentives, mainly that the
> incentive would be for the large miners to interconnect in a private
> network and generate only maximum-size blocks, creating a strong
> centralization pressure in the network.

I'll also point out that miners with the goal of finding more blocks
than their competition - a viable long-term strategy to increase market
share and/or a short-term strategy to get more transaction fees -
actually have a perverse incentive(1) to ensure their blocks do *not*
get to more than ~30% of the hashing power. The main thing holding them
back from doing that is that the inflation subsidy is still quite high -
better to get the reward now than try to push your competition out of
business.

It's plausible that with a limited blocksize there won't be an
opportunity to delay propagation by broadcasting larger blocks - if
blocks propagate in a matter of seconds worst case there's no
opportunity for gaming the system. But it does strongly show that we
must build systems where that worst case propagation time in all
circumstances is very short relative to the block interval.

1) http://www.mail-archive.com/bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net/msg03200.html

-- 
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
000000000000000004dc867e4541315090329f45ed4dd30e2fd7423a38a72c0e

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 650 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2015-05-07  1:49 ` Peter Todd

  2015-05-08 11:02   ` Thomas Zander
  
From: Justus Ranvier @ 2015-05-07  3:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: bitcoin-development

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1489 bytes --]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 05/07/2015 03:49 AM, Peter Todd wrote:
> I'm not sure if you've seen this, but a good paper on this topic
> was published recently: "The Economics of Bitcoin Transaction
> Fees"

..for some very strange definitions of "good".

That paper may present valid game theory, yet game theory has a
well-known limitation when it comes to predicting real world behavior
in that the predictions are only as good as the simplified model those
predictions are based on is accurate.

At the very least, we should wait to draw any conclusions from that
paper until it has been sanity checked by a praxeological review.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJVStYTAAoJECpf2nDq2eYjqzAQAJkLwVq3cJxaP5MirS6j+SkN
NuRIQS8EzJkvojZvHCSRz3xPZpl9Cx2T6/hsLjIfzvMuDHKsaOkkLlL0q95ekv4T
acfami64326DFAxiO0ptspPjCRipagmjSEwZGZwC/QZtTdnt+N9LsH0SFDP6hxbY
Kf11LRd11Ap4v/VnBg/zb4daZnVm0k0nfZxK4rG1zN14r5JEu6eiodUBZc6e4qih
LmopoddIwJS4MY1GoR2kCehAbJseZZyQQmHFEX1Vhc74ETGXWApfgF0tpo6ZMutd
OT0WGhCpj4yG1u5bRaiNnsOy9WcBTKzDOLZUVVh/GhUGHWUulZu8ujYrX7Q6GR5S
VPvOOL6Ts/RGEAE1UWKzHfPjrLZAHKgLAzBjm6o1ZXdBcnV+FsThNvd7fxHvaJsO
pWGSu8qDmN/wH657Tphbthb4T/awnuf4rO6oBP+OGu+ydPIlIlt6rM2E4Bq366yy
CJbzSR3x/P7fRmT2bbSg4rxTDyLFJpNIWOcNaMRBeO69OdNZxlranvFvEl/6FfqK
GO/LPQiYCe/+yhXgUJzzlYpayPiPFWCg0FxwQ+xl1josTsrfPE4BUivkZvIlqOIY
LX1fDHt/IIUNp8OUkY2eERxeB//dlY55nP7VGUEJLNnBkXuoBd70lMtGXxtgvw2M
Wy5VER9CiEOUMMwzWi3Q
=8mit
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[-- Attachment #2: 0xEAD9E623.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-keys, Size: 18667 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
* 
  2015-05-06 22:12 Matt Corallo
                   ` 
  2015-05-07  3:47 ` 

  2015-05-07 10:12   ` Peter Todd
                     ` (3 more replies)
  2015-05-07 11:20 ` Wladimir J. van der Laan
  2015-05-07 15:56 ` Jeff Garzik
  10 siblings, 4 replies; 115+ messages in thread
From: Mike Hearn @ 2015-05-07  9:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Matt Corallo;  Bitcoin Dev

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4448 bytes --]

Hey Matt,

OK, let's get started ....

However, there hasnt been any discussion on this
> mailing list in several years as far as I can tell.
>

Probably because this list is not a good place for making progress or
reaching decisions. Those are triggered by pull requests (sometimes).

If you're wondering "why now", that's probably my fault. A few days ago
Wladimir posted a release timeline. I observed to Wladimir and Gavin in
private that this timeline meant a change to the block size was unlikely to
get into 0.11, leaving only 0.12, which would give everyone only a few
months to upgrade in order to fork the chain by the end of the winter
growth season. That seemed tight.

Wladimir did not reply to this email, unfortunately. Perhaps he would like
the issue to go away. It won't - if Bitcoin continues on its current growth
trends it *will* run out of capacity, almost certainly by some time next
year.

What we need to see right now is leadership and a plan, that fits in the
available time window.


> Certainly a consensus in this kind of technical community should be a
> basic requirement for any serious commitment to blocksize increase.
>

I'm afraid I have come to disagree. I no longer believe this community can
reach consensus on anything protocol related. Some of these arguments have
dragged on for years. Consensus isn't even well defined - consensus of who?
Anyone who shows up? And what happens when, inevitably, no consensus is
reached? Stasis forever?


> Long-term incentive compatibility requires that there be some fee
> pressure, and that blocks be relatively consistently full or very nearly
> full.


I disagree. When the money supply eventually dwindles I doubt it will be
fee pressure that funds mining, but as that's a long time in the future,
it's very hard to predict what might happen.


> What we see today are
> transactions enjoying next-block confirmations with nearly zero pressure
> to include any fee at all (though many do because it makes wallet code
> simpler).
>

Many do because free transactions are broken - the relay limiter means
whether a free transaction actually makes it across the network or not is
basically pot luck and there's no way for a wallet to know, short of either
trying it or actually receiving every single transaction and repeating the
calculations. If free transactions weren't broken for all non-full nodes
they'd probably be used a lot more.


> This allows the well-funded Bitcoin ecosystem to continue building
> systems which rely on transactions moving quickly into blocks while
> pretending these systems scale.


I have two huge problems with this line of thinking.

Firstly, no, the "Bitcoin ecosystem" is not well funded. Blockstream might
be, but significant numbers of users are running programs developed by tiny
startups, or volunteers who don't have millions in venture capital to play
with.

Arm-twisting "the ecosystem" into developing complicated Rube Goldberg
machines in double quick time, just to keep the Bitcoin show on the road,
is in fact the opposite of decentralisation - it will effectively exclude
anyone who isn't able to raise large amounts of corporate funding from
writing code that uses the Bitcoin network. Decentralisation benefits from
simplicity, and bigger blocks are (in Gavin's words) "the simplest thing
that will work".

My second problem is the claim that everyone is playing pretend about
Bitcoin, except you guys. I would put it another way - I would say those
people are building products and getting users, by making reasonable
engineering tradeoffs and using systems that work. Yes, one day those
systems might have to change. That's the nature of scaling. It's the nature
of progress. But not today. Probably not tomorrow either.

What I would like to see from Blockstream is a counter-proposal. So far you
have made lots of vague comments that we all agree with - yes,
decentralisation is good, yes some block size limit must exist, if only
because computers are finite machines.

What I don't see from you yet is a *specific and credible plan* that fits
within the next 12 months and which allows Bitcoin to keep growing. Not
some vague handwave like "let's all use the Lightning network" (which does
not exist), or "let's do more research" (Gavin has done plenty of
research), or "but what about the risks" (Bitcoin is full of risks). A
plan, with dates attached, and a strong chance of actually being deployed
in time.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 5975 bytes --]

^ permalink raw reply	[|nested] 115+ messages in thread
* 
  2015-05-06 22:12 Matt Corallo
                   ` 
  2015-05-07  9:25 ` 

  2015-05-07 11:30   ` Eric Lombrozo
  2015-05-07 15:56 ` Jeff Garzik
  10 siblings, 1 reply; 115+ messages in thread
From: Wladimir J. van der Laan @ 2015-05-07 11:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Matt Corallo;  Bitcoin Dev

On Wed, May 06, 2015 at 10:12:14PM +0000, Matt Corallo wrote:

> Personally, I'm rather strongly against any commitment to a block size
> increase in the near future. Long-term incentive compatibility requires
> that there be some fee pressure, and that blocks be relatively
> consistently full or very nearly full. What we see today are
> transactions enjoying next-block confirmations with nearly zero pressure
> to include any fee at all (though many do because it makes wallet code
> simpler).

I'm weakly against a block size increase in the near future. Some arguments follow. For sake of brevity, this ignores the inherent practical and political issues in scheduling a hardfork.

Against:

1. The everyone-verifies-everything approach inherently doesn't scale well. Yes, it is possible to increase the capacity, within limits, without completely destroying the system, but if scaling turns out to be a success, even a 20-fold increase is just a drop in the bucket (this will not make a decentralized Changetip possible). The gain will always be linear, at a total cost that scales in the number of (full node) users times the block size. The whole idea of everyone verifying the whole world's bus tickets and coffee purchases seems ludicrous to me. For true scaling, as well as decentralized microtransactions, the community needs to work on non-centralized 'level 2' protocols for transactions, for example the Lightning network.

  I prefer not to rely on faith that 'Moore's law' - which isn't a physical law but a trend - will save us. And it doesn't so much apply to communication bandwidth as its techniques are more diverse. E.g. for Bitsat, 20MB blocks will push the limit.

2a. Pushing up bandwidth and CPU usage will, inevitably, push people at the lower end away from running their own full nodes. Mind you, the sheer number of full nodes is not the issue, but Bitcoin's security model is based on being able to verify the shared consensus on one's own. A lot of recent development effort went into making the node software less heavy. Yes, one could switch to SPV, but that is a serious privacy compromise. In the worst case people will feel forced to move to webwallets.

  That was about sustained bandwidth - syncing a new node from scratch through the internet will become unwieldy sooner - this can be worked around with UTXO snapshots, but doing this in a way that doesn't completely pull the rug under the security model needs research (I'm aware that this could be construed the other way, that such a solution will be needed eventually and fast block chain growth just accelerates it).

2b. The bandwidth bound for just downloading blocks is ~4GB per month now, it will be ~52GB per month. Behind Tor and other anonimity networks, nodes will reveal themselves by the sheer volume of data transferred even to only download the block chain. This may already be the case, but will become worse. It may even become harmful to Tor itself.

3a. The costs are effectively externalized to users. I, hence, don't like calling the costs "trivial". I don't like making this decision for others, I'm not convinced that they are trivial for everyone. Besides, this will increase supply of block chain space, and thus push down transaction fees, but at cost to *all users*, even users that hardly do any transactions. Hence it favors those that generate lots of transactions (is that a perverse incentive? not sure, but it needs to be weighted in any decision).

3b. A mounting fee pressure, resulting in a true fee market where transactions compete to get into blocks, results in urgency to develop decentralized off-chain solutions. I'm afraid increasing the block size will kick this can down the road and let people (and the large Bitcoin companies) relax, until it's again time for a block chain increase, and then they'll rally Gavin again, never resulting in a smart, sustainable solution but eternal awkward discussions like this.

4. We haven't solved the problem of arbitrary data storage, and increasing the block size would compound that problem. More data storage more storage available for the same price - and up to 20x faster growth of the UTXO set, which is permanent (more externalization). More opportunity for pedonazis to insert double-plus ungood data, exposing users to possible legal ramifications.

For:

1. First, the obvious: It gives some breathing room in a year (or whenever the hard fork is planned). If necessary, it will allow more transactions to be on-chain for a while longer while other solutions are being implemented.

2. *Allowing* 20MB blocks does not mean miners will immediately start making them. Many of them aren't even filling up to the 1MB limit right now, probably due to latency/stale block issues. This makes objection 2 milder, which is about *worst case* bandwidth, as well as 4, as the end result may not be 20MB blocks filled with arbitrary "junk".

3. Investment in off-chain solutions is guided by not only fee pressure, but also other reasons such as speed of confirmation, which is unreliable on-chain. This eases objection 3b. 

Whew, this grew longer than I expected. To conclude, I understand the advantages of scaling, I do not doubt a block size increase will *work* Although there may be unforseen issues, I'm confident they'll be resolved. However, it may well make Bitcoin less useful for what sets it apart from other systems in the first place: the possibility for people to run their own own "bank" without special investment in connectivity and computing hardware. 
Also the politics aspect (at some point it becomes a question of who decides for who? who is excluded? all those human decisions...) of this I don't like in the least. Possibly unavoidable at some point, but that's something *I*'d like to kick down the road.

Wladimir




^ permalink raw reply	[|nested] 115+ messages in thread
2015-05-07  9:25 ` Mike Hearn

  2015-05-07 10:42   ` Btc Drak
                     ` (2 subsequent siblings)
  
From: Peter Todd @ 2015-05-07 10:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Mike Hearn;  Bitcoin Dev

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1997 bytes --]

On Thu, May 07, 2015 at 11:25:04AM +0200, Mike Hearn wrote:
> > Certainly a consensus in this kind of technical community should be a
> > basic requirement for any serious commitment to blocksize increase.
> >
> 
> I'm afraid I have come to disagree. I no longer believe this community can
> reach consensus on anything protocol related. Some of these arguments have
> dragged on for years. Consensus isn't even well defined - consensus of who?
> Anyone who shows up? And what happens when, inevitably, no consensus is
> reached? Stasis forever?

Care to be specific?

We've made lots of protocol related changes, as well as non-consensus
policy changes, often in quite short timeframes, and with little drama.
For instance BIP66 adopting is progressing smoothly, and itself was very
quickly developed as part of a broader response to a serious OpenSSL
flaw. My own BIP65 is getting wide consensus with little drama and good
peer review, and that's happening even without as much attention paid to
it from myself as I should have been giving it. The BIP62 malleability
softfork is going more slowly, but that's because peer review is finding
issues and fixing them - something to be expected in an environment
where we simply must be cautious.

As for the v0.11 release, it will have pruning, perhaps the biggest
change to the way Bitcoin Core works that we've ever made. Equally it's
notable how many people collaborated on the implementation of pruning,
again with little drama.

Sure, some stuff has been hard to get consensus on. But those things
carry high risks, and involve code and practices known to be dangerous.
In most cases we've found out the lack of consensus was spot on, and
controversial changes turn out later to have severe security
vulnerabilities. I read that as a sign that the peer review and
consensus building process works just fine.

-- 
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
00000000000000000af0c4ba9d91c00d48c4493899d7235fd819ac76f16d148d

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 650 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2015-05-07  9:25 ` Mike Hearn
  2015-05-07 10:12   ` Peter Todd

  2015-05-07 10:52   ` Jorge Timón
  2015-05-07 14:04   ` Jeff Garzik
  
From: Btc Drak @ 2015-05-07 10:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Mike Hearn;  Bitcoin Dev

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 596 bytes --]

On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 10:25 AM, Mike Hearn <mike@plan99•net> wrote:

> What I don't see from you yet is a *specific and credible plan* that fits
> within the next 12 months and which allows Bitcoin to keep growing. Not
> some vague handwave like "let's all use the Lightning network" (which does
> not exist), or "let's do more research" (Gavin has done plenty of
> research), or "but what about the risks" (Bitcoin is full of risks). A
> plan, with dates attached, and a strong chance of actually being deployed
> in time.
>

Would you please explain where this 12 months timeframe comes from?

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1265 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
* 
  2015-05-07  9:25 ` Mike Hearn
                     ` 
  2015-05-07 10:52   ` 

  2015-05-07 14:32     ` Peter Todd
  2015-05-07 14:38     ` Justus Ranvier
  3 siblings, 2 replies; 115+ messages in thread
From: Jeff Garzik @ 2015-05-07 14:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Mike Hearn;  Bitcoin Dev

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1111 bytes --]

I have a lot more written down, a WIP; here are the highlights.

- The 1MB limit is an ancient anti-spam limit, and needs to go.

- The 1MB limit is economically entrenched at this point, and cannot be
removed at a whim.

- This is a major change to the economics of a $3.2B system.  This change
picks winners and losers.  There is attendant moral hazard.

- The core dev team is not and should not be an FOMC.

- The bar for "major economic change to a $3.2B system" should necessarily
be high.  In the more boring world of investments, this would accompanied
by Due Diligence including but not limited to projections for success,
failure scenarios, upside risks and downside risks.  Projections and
fact-based simulations.

- There are significant disruption risks on the pro (change it) and con
(keep 1MB) sides of the debate.

- People are privately lobbying Gavin for this.  That is the wrong way to
go.   I have pushed for a more public debate, and public endorsements (or
condemnations) from major miners, merchants, payment processors,
stackholders, ...   It is unfair to criticize Gavin to doing this.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1343 bytes --]

^ permalink raw reply	[|nested] 115+ messages in thread
2015-05-07 10:52   ` Jorge Timón

  2015-05-07 11:29     ` Mike Hearn
  2015-05-07 11:55     ` Dave Hudson
  
From: Andrew @ 2015-05-07 11:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Bitcoin Dev

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 7560 bytes --]

I'm mainly just an observer on this. I mostly agree with Pieter. Also, I
think the main reason why people like Gavin and Mike Hearn are trying to
rush this through is because they have some kind of "apps" that depend on
zero conf instant transactions, so this would of course require more
traffic on the blockchain. I think people like Gavin or Mike should state
clearly what kind of (rigorous) system for instant transactions is
satisfactory for use in their applications. Be it lightning or something
similar, what is good enough? And no zero conf is not a real secure system.
Then once we know what is good enough for them (and everyone else), we can
implement it as a soft fork into the protocol, and it's a win win situation
for both sides (we can also benefit from all the new users people like Mike
are trying bring in).

On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 10:52 AM, Jorge Timón <jtimon@jtimon•cc> wrote:

> On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 11:25 AM, Mike Hearn <mike@plan99•net> wrote:
> > I observed to Wladimir and Gavin in private that this timeline meant a
> change to the block size was unlikely to get into 0.11, leaving only 0.12,
> which would give everyone only a few months to upgrade in order to fork the
> chain by the end of the winter growth season. That seemed tight.
>
> Can you please elaborate on what terrible things will happen if we
> don't increase the block size by winter this year?
> I assume that you are expecting full blocks by then, have you used any
> statistical technique to come up with that date or is it just your
> guess?
> Because I love wild guesses and mine is that full 1 MB blocks will not
> happen until June 2017.
>
> > What we need to see right now is leadership and a plan, that fits in the
> > available time window.
> >
> >>
> >> Certainly a consensus in this kind of technical community should be a
> >> basic requirement for any serious commitment to blocksize increase.
> >
> >
> > I'm afraid I have come to disagree. I no longer believe this community
> can
> > reach consensus on anything protocol related. Some of these arguments
> have
> > dragged on for years. Consensus isn't even well defined - consensus of
> who?
> > Anyone who shows up? And what happens when, inevitably, no consensus is
> > reached? Stasis forever?
>
> We've successfully reached consensus for several softfork proposals
> already.
> I agree with others that hardfork need to be uncontroversial and there
> should be consensus about them.
> If you have other ideas for the criteria for hardfork deployment all I'm
> ears.
> I just hope that by  "What we need to see right now is leadership" you
> don't mean something like "when Gaving and Mike agree it's enough to
> deploy a hardfork" when you go from vague to concrete.
>
>
> >> Long-term incentive compatibility requires that there be some fee
> >> pressure, and that blocks be relatively consistently full or very nearly
> >> full.
> >
> >
> > I disagree. When the money supply eventually dwindles I doubt it will be
> fee
> > pressure that funds mining, but as that's a long time in the future, it's
> > very hard to predict what might happen.
>
> Oh, so your answer to "bitcoin will eventually need to live on fees
> and we would like to know more about how it will look like then" it's
> "no bitcoin long term it's broken long term but that's far away in the
> future so let's just worry about the present".
> I agree that it's hard to predict that future, but having some
> competition for block space would actually help us get more data on a
> similar situation to be able to predict that future better.
> What you want to avoid at all cost (the block size actually being
> used), I see as the best opportunity we have to look into the future.
>
> >> What we see today are
> >> transactions enjoying next-block confirmations with nearly zero pressure
> >> to include any fee at all (though many do because it makes wallet code
> >> simpler).
> >
> >
> > Many do because free transactions are broken - the relay limiter means
> > whether a free transaction actually makes it across the network or not is
> > basically pot luck and there's no way for a wallet to know, short of
> either
> > trying it or actually receiving every single transaction and repeating
> the
> > calculations. If free transactions weren't broken for all non-full nodes
> > they'd probably be used a lot more.
>
> Free transactions are a gift from miners that run an altruistic policy.
> That's great but we shouldn't rely on them for the future. They will
> likely disappear at some point and that's ok.
> In any case, he's not complaining about the lack of free transactions,
> more like the opposite.
> He is saying that's very easy to get free transactions in the next
> block and blocks aren't full so there's no incentive to include fees
> to compete for the space.
> We can talk a lot about "a fee market" and build a theoretically
> perfect fee estimator but we won't actually have a fee market until
> there's some competition for space.
> Nobody will pay for space that's abundant just like people don't pay
> for the air they breath.
>
> > What I don't see from you yet is a specific and credible plan that fits
> > within the next 12 months and which allows Bitcoin to keep growing. Not
> some
> > vague handwave like "let's all use the Lightning network" (which does not
> > exist), or "let's do more research" (Gavin has done plenty of research),
> or
> > "but what about the risks" (Bitcoin is full of risks). A plan, with dates
> > attached, and a strong chance of actually being deployed in time.
>
> Ok, this is my plan: we wait 12 months, hope that your estimations are
> correct (in case that my guess was better than yours, we keep waiting
> until June 2017) and start having full blocks and people having to
> wait 2 blocks for their transactions to be confirmed some times.
> That would be the beginning of a true "fee market", something that
> Gavin used to say was his #1 priority not so long ago (which seems
> contradictory with his current efforts to avoid that from happening).
> Having a true fee market seems clearly an advantage.
> What are supposedly disastrous negative parts of this plan that make
> an alternative plan (ie: increasing the block size) so necessary and
> obvious.
> I think the advocates of the size increase are failing to explain the
> disadvantages of maintaining the current size. It feels like the
> explanation are missing because it should be somehow obvious how the
> sky will burn if we don't increase the block size soon.
> But, well, it is not obvious to me, so please elaborate on why having
> a fee market (instead of just an price estimator for a market that
> doesn't even really exist) would be a disaster.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> One dashboard for servers and applications across Physical-Virtual-Cloud
> Widest out-of-the-box monitoring support with 50+ applications
> Performance metrics, stats and reports that give you Actionable Insights
> Deep dive visibility with transaction tracing using APM Insight.
> http://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/290420510;117567292;y
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>



-- 
PGP: B6AC 822C 451D 6304 6A28  49E9 7DB7 011C D53B 5647

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 8926 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
* 
  2015-05-06 22:12 Matt Corallo
                   ` 
  2015-05-07 11:20 ` 

  2015-05-07 16:13   ` Mike Hearn
  10 siblings, 1 reply; 115+ messages in thread
From: Jeff Garzik @ 2015-05-07 15:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Matt Corallo;  Bitcoin Dev

Dear list,

Apparently my emails are being marked as spam, despite being sent from
GMail's web interface.  I've pinged our sysadmin.  Thanks for letting
me know.

-- 
Jeff Garzik
Bitcoin core developer and open source evangelist
BitPay, Inc.      https://bitpay.com/



^ permalink raw reply	[|nested] 115+ messages in thread
2015-05-07 10:52   ` Jorge Timón
  2015-05-07 11:15     ` Andrew

  2015-05-07 12:26       ` Jorge Timón
                         ` (2 more replies)
  2015-05-07 11:55     ` Dave Hudson
  
From: Mike Hearn @ 2015-05-07 11:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Jorge Timón;  Bitcoin Dev

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4249 bytes --]

>
> Can you please elaborate on what terrible things will happen if we
> don't increase the block size by winter this year?
>

I was referring to winter next year. 0.12 isn't scheduled until the end of
the year, according to Wladimir. I explained where this figure comes from
in this article:

https://medium.com/@octskyward/bitcoin-s-seasonal-affective-disorder-35733bab760d

It's a fairly simple estimate based on previous growth patterns.

Because I love wild guesses and mine is that full 1 MB blocks will not
> happen until June 2017.
>

OK, it could be. But do you think this debate will play out significantly
differently if you are right, I am wrong, and we have this discussion next
summer instead? Because in several years of watching these debates, I
haven't seen much change in them.


> We've successfully reached consensus for several softfork proposals
> already.
>

Are you sure about that?

What if Gavin popped up right now and said he disagreed with every current
proposal, he disagreed with side chains too, and there would be no
consensus on any of them until the block size limit was raised.

Would you say, oh, OK, guess that's it then. There's no consensus so might
as well scrap all those proposals, as they'll never happen anyway. Bye bye
side chains whitepaper.



> I just hope that by  "What we need to see right now is leadership" you
> don't mean something like "when Gaving and Mike agree it's enough to
> deploy a hardfork" when you go from vague to concrete.
>

No. What I meant is that someone (theoretically Wladimir) needs to make a
clear decision. If that decision is "Bitcoin Core will wait and watch the
fireworks when blocks get full", that would be showing leadership .....
albeit I believe in the wrong direction. It would, however, let people know
what's what and let them start to make longer term plans.

This dillydallying around is an issue - people just make vague points that
can't really be disagreed with (more nodes would be nice, smaller pools
would also be nice etc), and nothing gets done.


> "no bitcoin long term it's broken long term but that's far away in the
> future so let's just worry about the present".
>

I never said Bitcoin is broken in the long term. Far from it - I laid out
my ideas for what will happen when the block subsidy dwindles years ago.

But yes, it's hard for me to care overly much about what happens 30 years
from now, for the same reason you probably care more about what happens
tomorrow than what happens after you are dead. The further into the future
you try and plan, the less likely your plans are to survive unscathed.


> What you want to avoid at all cost (the block size actually being
> used), I see as the best opportunity we have to look into the future.
>

I think I see one of the causes of disagreement now.

I will write more on the topic of what will happen if we hit the block size
limit soon, maybe this evening. I have some other tasks to do first.

Regardless, I don't believe we will get any useful data out of such an
event. I've seen distributed systems run out of capacity before. What will
happen instead is technological failure followed by rapid user abandonment
that pushes traffic back below the pressure threshold .... and those users
will most likely not come back any time soon.


> Ok, this is my plan: we wait 12 months, hope that your estimations are
> correct (in case that my guess was better than yours, we keep waiting
> until June 2017) and start having full blocks and people having to
> wait 2 blocks for their transactions to be confirmed some times.
>

I disagree that'd be the outcome, but good, this is progress. Now we need
to hear something like that from Wladimir, or whoever has the final say
around here.

With respect to the fee market: I think it's fairer to say Gavin wants a
market to exist, and he also wants supply to be plentiful. 20mb limit
doesn't actually mean every block will be 20mb the day after, no more than
they're all 1mb today. Miners may discover that if they go beyond 5mb they
have too many orphans and then propagation speed will have to be optimised
to break through the next bottleneck. Scaling is always about finding the
next bottleneck and removing it, ideally, before you hit it.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 6282 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2015-05-07 11:20 ` Wladimir J. van der Laan

  
From: Eric Lombrozo @ 2015-05-07 11:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Wladimir J. van der Laan;  Bitcoin Dev


[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 325 bytes --]


> On May 7, 2015, at 4:20 AM, Wladimir J. van der Laan <laanwj@gmail•com> wrote:
> 
> For sake of brevity, this ignores the inherent practical and political issues in scheduling a hardfork.

IMHO, these issues are the elephant in the room and the talk of block size increases is just a distraction.

- Eric Lombrozo

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 1513 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 842 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2015-05-07 10:52   ` Jorge Timón
  2015-05-07 11:15     ` Andrew
  2015-05-07 11:29     ` Mike Hearn

  2015-05-07 13:40       ` Jorge Timón
  
From: Dave Hudson @ 2015-05-07 11:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Jorge Timón;  Bitcoin Dev

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 6316 bytes --]


> On 7 May 2015, at 11:52, Jorge Timón <jtimon@jtimon•cc> wrote:
> 
> On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 11:25 AM, Mike Hearn <mike@plan99•net> wrote:
>> I observed to Wladimir and Gavin in private that this timeline meant a change to the block size was unlikely to get into 0.11, leaving only 0.12, which would give everyone only a few months to upgrade in order to fork the chain by the end of the winter growth season. That seemed tight.
> 
> Can you please elaborate on what terrible things will happen if we
> don't increase the block size by winter this year?
> I assume that you are expecting full blocks by then, have you used any
> statistical technique to come up with that date or is it just your
> guess?
> Because I love wild guesses and mine is that full 1 MB blocks will not
> happen until June 2017.

I've been looking at this problem for quite a while (Gavin cited some of my work a few days ago) so thought I'd chime in with a few thoughts (some of which I've not published). I believe the major problem here is that this isn't just an engineering decision; the reaction of the miners will actually determine the success or failure of any course of action. In fact any decision forced upon them may backfire if they collectively take exception to it. It's worth bearing in mind that most of the hash rate is now under the control of relatively large companies, many of whom have investors who are expecting to see returns; it probably isn't sufficient to just expect them to "do the right thing".

We're seeing plenty of full 1M byte blocks already and have been for months. Typically whenever we have one of the large inter-block gaps then these are often followed by one (and sometimes several) completely full blocks (full by the definition of whatever the miner wanted to use as a size limit).

The problem with this particular discussion is that there are quite a few "knowns" but an equally large number of "unknowns". Let's look at them:

Known: There has been a steady trend towards the mean block size getting larger. See https://blockchain.info/charts/avg-block-size?timespan=all&showDataPoints=false&daysAverageString=7&show_header=true&scale=0&address= <https://blockchain.info/charts/avg-block-size?timespan=all&showDataPoints=false&daysAverageString=7&show_header=true&scale=0&address=>

Known: Now the trend was definitely increasing quite quickly last year but for the last few months has been slowing down, however we did see pretty much a 2x increase in mean block sizes in 2014.

Known: For most of 2015 we've actually been seeing that rate slow quite dramatically, but the total numbers of transactions are still rising so we're seeing mean transaction sizes have been reducing, and that tallies with seeing more transactions per block: https://blockchain.info/charts/n-transactions-per-block?timespan=all&showDataPoints=false&daysAverageString=7&show_header=true&scale=0&address= <https://blockchain.info/charts/n-transactions-per-block?timespan=all&showDataPoints=false&daysAverageString=7&show_header=true&scale=0&address=>

Unknown: Why are seeing more smaller transactions? Are we simply seeing more efficient use of blockchain resources or have some large consumers of block space going away? How much more block space compression might be possible in, say, the next 12 months?

Known: If we reach the point where all blocks are 1M bytes then there's a major problem in terms of transaction confirmation. I published an analysis of the impact of different mean block sizes against confirmation times: http://hashingit.com/analysis/34-bitcoin-traffic-bulletin <http://hashingit.com/analysis/34-bitcoin-traffic-bulletin>. The current 35% to 45% mean block size doesn't have a huge impact on transaction confirmations (assuming equal fees for all) but once we're up at 80% then things start to get unpleasant. Instead of 50% of first confirmations taking about 7 minutes they instead take nearer to 19 minutes.

Known: There are currently a reasonably large number of zero-fee transactions getting relayed and mined. If things start to slow down then there will be a huge incentive to delay them (or drop them altogether).

Unknown: If block space starts to get more scarce then how will this affect the use of the blockchain? Do the zero-fee TXs move to some batched transfer solution via third party? Do people start to get smarter about how TXs are encoded? Do some TXs go away completely (there are a lot of long-chain transactions that may simply be "noise" creating an artificially inflated view of transaction volumes)?

Known: There's a major problem looming for miners at the next block reward halving. Many are already in a bad place and without meaningful fees then sans a 2x increase in the USD:BTC ratio then many will simply have to leave the network, increasing centralisation risks. There seems to be a fairly pervasive assumption that the 300-ish MW of power that they currently use is going to pay for itself (ignoring capital and other operating costs).

Unknown: If the block size is increased and yet more negligible fee transactions are dumped onto the network then that might well motivate some large fraction of miners to start to clamp block sizes or reject transactions below a certain fee threshold; they can easily create their own artificial scarcity if enough of them feel it is in their interest (it's not the most tricky setting to change). One can well imagine VC investors in mining groups asking why they're essentially subsidising all of the other VC-funded Bitcoin startups.

Known: the orphan rate is still pretty-high even with everyone's fast connections. If we assume that 20M byte blocks become possible then that's likely to increase.

Unknown: What are the security implications for larger blocks (this one (at least) can be simulated though)? For example, could large blocks with huge numbers of trivial transactions be used to put other validators at a disadvantage in a variant of a selfish mining attack? I've seen objections that such bad actors could be blacklisted in the future but it's not clear to me how. A private mining pool can trivially be made to appear like 100 pools of 1% of the size without significantly affecting the economics of running that private mine.


Cheers,
Dave


[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 7857 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2015-05-07 11:29     ` Mike Hearn

  2015-05-07 14:05         ` Mike Hearn
  2015-05-07 13:02       ` Peter Todd
  2015-05-07 19:14       ` Matt Corallo
  
From: Jorge Timón @ 2015-05-07 12:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Mike Hearn;  Bitcoin Dev

On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 1:29 PM, Mike Hearn <mike@plan99•net> wrote:
> I was referring to winter next year. 0.12 isn't scheduled until the end of
> the year, according to Wladimir. I explained where this figure comes from in
> this article:
>
> https://medium.com/@octskyward/bitcoin-s-seasonal-affective-disorder-35733bab760d
>
> It's a fairly simple estimate based on previous growth patterns.

Ok, thanks.

>> We've successfully reached consensus for several softfork proposals
>> already.
>
>
> Are you sure about that?

Yes, Peter Todd gave more details.

> What if Gavin popped up right now and said he disagreed with every current
> proposal, he disagreed with side chains too, and there would be no consensus
> on any of them until the block size limit was raised.
>
> Would you say, oh, OK, guess that's it then. There's no consensus so might
> as well scrap all those proposals, as they'll never happen anyway. Bye bye
> side chains whitepaper.

Well, yes, it is true that "universally uncontroversial" (which is
what I think the requirement should be for hard forks) is a vague
qualifier that's not formally defined anywhere.
I guess we should only consider rational arguments. You cannot just
nack something without further explanation.
If his explanation was "I will change my mind after we increase block
size", I guess the community should say "then we will just ignore your
nack because it makes no sense".
In the same way, when people use fallacies (purposely or not) we must
expose that and say "this fallacy doesn't count as an argument".
But yeah, it would probably be good to define better what constitutes
a "sensible objection" or something. That doesn't seem simple though.

>> I just hope that by  "What we need to see right now is leadership" you
>> don't mean something like "when Gaving and Mike agree it's enough to
>> deploy a hardfork" when you go from vague to concrete.
>
>
> No. What I meant is that someone (theoretically Wladimir) needs to make a
> clear decision. If that decision is "Bitcoin Core will wait and watch the
> fireworks when blocks get full", that would be showing leadership .....
> albeit I believe in the wrong direction. It would, however, let people know
> what's what and let them start to make longer term plans.
>
> This dillydallying around is an issue - people just make vague points that
> can't really be disagreed with (more nodes would be nice, smaller pools
> would also be nice etc), and nothing gets done.

Well, there's two different things here.
One thing is the Bitcoin core project where you could argue that the 5
committers decide (I don't know why Wladimir would have any more
authority than the others).
But what the bitcoin network itself does it's very different because
unlike the bitcoin core software project, the Bitcoin network is
decentralized.
If the people with commit access go nuts and decide something that's
clearly stupid or evil, people can just fork the project because it is
free software.
You cannot be forced to use specific features of free software, you
can always remove them and recompile, that's the whole point.
So, no, there's no authority to decide on hardforks and that's why I
think that only clearly uncontroversial things can get through as
hardforks.

>> What you want to avoid at all cost (the block size actually being
>> used), I see as the best opportunity we have to look into the future.
>
>
> I think I see one of the causes of disagreement now.
>
> I will write more on the topic of what will happen if we hit the block size
> limit soon, maybe this evening. I have some other tasks to do first.
>
> Regardless, I don't believe we will get any useful data out of such an
> event. I've seen distributed systems run out of capacity before. What will
> happen instead is technological failure followed by rapid user abandonment
> that pushes traffic back below the pressure threshold .... and those users
> will most likely not come back any time soon.

Ok, so in simple terms, you expect people to have to pay enormous fees
and/or wait thousands of blocks for their transactions to get included
in the chain.
Is that correct?

>> Ok, this is my plan: we wait 12 months, hope that your estimations are
>> correct (in case that my guess was better than yours, we keep waiting
>> until June 2017) and start having full blocks and people having to
>> wait 2 blocks for their transactions to be confirmed some times.
>
>
> I disagree that'd be the outcome, but good, this is progress. Now we need to
> hear something like that from Wladimir, or whoever has the final say around
> here.

As said above there's no authority to decide on what Bitcoin the p2p
network does. Again, that's the whole point.
But, yes, I agree that both sides understanding each other better is progress.

> With respect to the fee market: I think it's fairer to say Gavin wants a
> market to exist, and he also wants supply to be plentiful. 20mb limit
> doesn't actually mean every block will be 20mb the day after, no more than
> they're all 1mb today. Miners may discover that if they go beyond 5mb they
> have too many orphans and then propagation speed will have to be optimised
> to break through the next bottleneck. Scaling is always about finding the
> next bottleneck and removing it, ideally, before you hit it.

I'm sure he wants a fee market to eventually exist as well.
But it seems that some people would like to see that happening before
the subsidies are low (not necessarily null), while other people are
fine waiting for that but don't want to ever be close to the scale
limits anytime soon.
I would also like to know for how long we need to prioritize short
term adoption in this way. As others have said, if the answer is
"forever, adoption is always the most important thing" then we will
end up with an improved version of Visa.
But yeah, this is progress, I'll wait for your more detailed
description of the tragedies that will follow hitting the block
limits, assuming for now that it will happen in 12 months.
My previous answer to the nervous "we will hit the block limits in 12
months if we don't do anything" was "not sure about 12 months, but
whatever, great, I'm waiting for that to observe how fees get
affected".
But it should have been a question "what's wrong with hitting the
block limits in 12 months?"



 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2015-05-07 11:29     ` Mike Hearn
  2015-05-07 12:26       ` Jorge Timón

  2015-05-07 19:14       ` Matt Corallo
  
From: Peter Todd @ 2015-05-07 13:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Mike Hearn;  Bitcoin Dev

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3013 bytes --]

On Thu, May 07, 2015 at 01:29:44PM +0200, Mike Hearn wrote:
> What if Gavin popped up right now and said he disagreed with every current
> proposal, he disagreed with side chains too, and there would be no
> consensus on any of them until the block size limit was raised.
> 
> Would you say, oh, OK, guess that's it then. There's no consensus so might
> as well scrap all those proposals, as they'll never happen anyway. Bye bye
> side chains whitepaper.

If Gavin had good points to make, he'd probably eventually change
everyone's mind.

But if he fails to do that at some point he'll just get ignored and for
all practical purposes won't be considered part of the consensus. Not
unlike how if someone suggested we power the blockchain via perpetual
motion machines they'd be ignored. Bitcoin is after all a decentralized
system so all power over the development process is held only by social
consent and respect.

At that point I'd suggest Gavin fork the project and go to the next
level of consensus gathering, the community at large; I'm noticing this
is exactly what you and Gavin are doing.

Speaking of, are you and Gavin still thinking about forking Bitcoin
Core? If so I wish you the best of luck.

Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2014 at 2:42 PM
From: "Mike Hearn" <mike@plan99•net>
To: "Satoshi Nakamoto" <satoshin@gmx•com>
Subject: Thinking about a fork
I don't expect a reply, just getting some thoughts off my chest. Writing them down helps.

Forking Bitcoin-Qt/Core has been coming up more and more often lately in conversation (up from zero not that long ago). Gavin even suggested me and him fork it ... I pointed out that maintainers don't normally fork their own software :)

The problem is that the current community of developers has largely lost interest in supporting SPV wallets. Indeed any protocol change that might mean any risk at all, for anyone, is now being bogged down in endless circular arguments that never end. The Bitcoin developers have effectively become the new financial regulators: restricting options within their jurisdiction with "someone might do something risky" being used as the justification.

If alternative low-risk protocols were always easily available this would be no problem, but often they require enormous coding and deployment effort or just don't exist at all. Yet, wallets must move forward. If we carry on as now there simply won't be any usable decentralised wallets left and Bitcoin will have become an energy-wasting backbone for a bunch of banks and payment processors. That's so far from your original vision, it's sad.

I know you won't return and that's wise, but sometimes I wish you'd left a clearer design manifesto before handing the reigns over to Gavin, who is increasingly burned out due to all the arguments (as am I).

Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2g9c0j/satoshi_email_leak/

-- 
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
0000000000000000066f25b3196b51d30df5c1678fc206fdf55b65dd6e593b05

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 650 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2015-05-07 11:55     ` Dave Hudson

  2015-05-08  4:46         ` Tom Harding
  
From: Jorge Timón @ 2015-05-07 13:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Dave Hudson;  Bitcoin Dev

On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 1:55 PM, Dave Hudson <dave@hashingit•com> wrote:
> Known: There has been a steady trend towards the mean block size getting
> larger. See
> https://blockchain.info/charts/avg-block-size?timespan=all&showDataPoints=false&daysAverageString=7&show_header=true&scale=0&address=

Looking at this graph and in retrospective, we shouldn't have removed
the standard policy limit without observing the supposedly disastrous
effects of hitting the limit first.
Removing the standard limit would have been trivial (bdb issues aside)
at any point after seeing the effects.

> Known: If we reach the point where all blocks are 1M bytes then there's a
> major problem in terms of transaction confirmation. I published an analysis
> of the impact of different mean block sizes against confirmation times:
> http://hashingit.com/analysis/34-bitcoin-traffic-bulletin. The current 35%
> to 45% mean block size doesn't have a huge impact on transaction
> confirmations (assuming equal fees for all) but once we're up at 80% then
> things start to get unpleasant. Instead of 50% of first confirmations taking
> about 7 minutes they instead take nearer to 19 minutes.

Well, this is only for first confirmations of free transaction.
A higher fee should increase your probabilities, but if you're sending
free transactions you may not care about them taking longer to be
included.

> Known: There are currently a reasonably large number of zero-fee
> transactions getting relayed and mined. If things start to slow down then
> there will be a huge incentive to delay them (or drop them altogether).

Well, maybe "instant and free" it's not a honest form of bitcoin
marketing and it just has to disappear.
Maybe we just need to start being more honest about pow being good for
processing micro-transactions: it is not.
Hopefully lightning will be good for that.
Free and fast in-chain transactions is something temporary that we
know will eventually disappear.
If people think it would be a adoption disaster that it happens soon,
then they could also detail an alternative plan to roll that out
instead of letting it happen.
But if the plan is to delay it forever...then I'm absolutely against.

> Known: There's a major problem looming for miners at the next block reward
> halving. Many are already in a bad place and without meaningful fees then
> sans a 2x increase in the USD:BTC ratio then many will simply have to leave
> the network, increasing centralisation risks. There seems to be a fairly
> pervasive assumption that the 300-ish MW of power that they currently use is
> going to pay for itself (ignoring capital and other operating costs).

I take this as an argument for increasing fee competition and thus,
against increasing the block size.

> Known: the orphan rate is still pretty-high even with everyone's fast
> connections. If we assume that 20M byte blocks become possible then that's
> likely to increase.
>
> Unknown: What are the security implications for larger blocks (this one (at
> least) can be simulated though)? For example, could large blocks with huge
> numbers of trivial transactions be used to put other validators at a
> disadvantage in a variant of a selfish mining attack? I've seen objections
> that such bad actors could be blacklisted in the future but it's not clear
> to me how. A private mining pool can trivially be made to appear like 100
> pools of 1% of the size without significantly affecting the economics of
> running that private mine.

No blacklisting, please, that's centralized.
In any case, a related known: bigger blocks give competitive advantage
to bigger miners.



 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2015-05-07  9:25 ` Mike Hearn
                     ` 
  2015-05-07 10:52   ` 

  2015-05-07 14:32     ` Peter Todd
  2015-05-07 14:38     ` Justus Ranvier
  
From: Jeff Garzik @ 2015-05-07 14:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Mike Hearn;  Bitcoin Dev

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1111 bytes --]

I have a lot more written down, a WIP; here are the highlights.

- The 1MB limit is an ancient anti-spam limit, and needs to go.

- The 1MB limit is economically entrenched at this point, and cannot be
removed at a whim.

- This is a major change to the economics of a $3.2B system.  This change
picks winners and losers.  There is attendant moral hazard.

- The core dev team is not and should not be an FOMC.

- The bar for "major economic change to a $3.2B system" should necessarily
be high.  In the more boring world of investments, this would accompanied
by Due Diligence including but not limited to projections for success,
failure scenarios, upside risks and downside risks.  Projections and
fact-based simulations.

- There are significant disruption risks on the pro (change it) and con
(keep 1MB) sides of the debate.

- People are privately lobbying Gavin for this.  That is the wrong way to
go.   I have pushed for a more public debate, and public endorsements (or
condemnations) from major miners, merchants, payment processors,
stackholders, ...   It is unfair to criticize Gavin to doing this.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1343 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2015-05-07 12:26       ` Jorge Timón

  2015-05-07 14:18           ` Bryan Bishop
                             ` (5 more replies)
  
From: Mike Hearn @ 2015-05-07 14:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Jorge Timón;  Bitcoin Dev

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2573 bytes --]

>
> If his explanation was "I will change my mind after we increase block
>
size", I guess the community should say "then we will just ignore your
> nack because it makes no sense".
>

Oh good! We can just kick anyone out of the consensus process if we think
they make no sense.

I guess that means me and Gavin can remove everyone else from the developer
consensus, because we think trying to stop Bitcoin growing makes no sense.

Do you see the problem with this whole notion? It cannot possibly work.
Whenever you try and make the idea of developer consensus work, what you
end up with is "I believe in consensus as long as it goes my way". Which is
worthless.


> One thing is the Bitcoin core project where you could argue that the 5
> committers decide (I don't know why Wladimir would have any more
> authority than the others).
>

Because he is formally the maintainer.

Maybe you dislike that idea. It's so .... centralised. So let's say Gavin
commits his patch, because his authority is equal to all other committers.
Someone else rolls it back. Gavin sets up a cron job to keep committing the
patch. Game over.

You cannot have committers fighting over what goes in and what doesn't.
That's madness. There must be a single decision maker for any given
codebase.


> Ok, so in simple terms, you expect people to have to pay enormous fees
> and/or wait thousands of blocks for their transactions to get included
> in the chain. Is that correct?
>

No. I'll write an article like the others, it's better than email for more
complicated discourse.

As others have said, if the answer is "forever, adoption is always the most
> important thing" then we will end up with an improved version of Visa.
>

This appears to be another one of those fundamental areas of disagreement.
I believe there is no chance of Bitcoin ending up like Visa, even if it is
wildly successful. I did the calculations years ago that show that won't
happen:

    https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Scalability

Decentralisation is a spectrum and Bitcoin will move around on that
spectrum over time. But claiming we have to pick between 1mb blocks and
"Bitcoin = VISA" is silly.



Peter:   your hypocrisy really is bottomless, isn't it? You constantly
claim to be a Righteous Defender of Privacy, but don't even hesitate before
publishing hacked private emails when it suits you.

Satoshi's hacker had no illusions about your horrible personality, which is
why he forwarded that email to you specifically. He knew you'd use it. You
should reflect on that fact. It says nothing good about you at all.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 4080 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2015-05-07 14:05         ` Mike Hearn

  2015-05-07 14:22           ` Peter Todd
                             ` (4 subsequent siblings)
  
From: Bryan Bishop @ 2015-05-07 14:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Mike Hearn, Bryan Bishop;  Bitcoin Development

On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 9:05 AM, Mike Hearn <mike@plan99•net> wrote:
> Maybe you dislike that idea. It's so .... centralised. So let's say Gavin
> commits his patch, because his authority is equal to all other committers.
> Someone else rolls it back. Gavin sets up a cron job to keep committing the
> patch. Game over.
>
> You cannot have committers fighting over what goes in and what doesn't.
> That's madness. There must be a single decision maker for any given
> codebase.

Hmm, git repositories don't quite work like that. Instead, you should
imagine everyone having a local copy of the git repository. Each
developer synchronizes their git repository with other developers.
They merge changes from specific remote branches that they have
received. Each developer has their own branch and each developer is
the "single decision maker" for the artifact that they compile.

- Bryan
http://heybryan.org/
1 512 203 0507



 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2015-05-07 14:05         ` Mike Hearn
  2015-05-07 14:18           ` Bryan Bishop

  2015-05-07 14:40           ` Peter Todd
                             ` (3 subsequent siblings)
  
From: Peter Todd @ 2015-05-07 14:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Mike Hearn;  Bitcoin Dev

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1324 bytes --]

On Thu, May 07, 2015 at 04:05:41PM +0200, Mike Hearn wrote:
> Peter:   your hypocrisy really is bottomless, isn't it? You constantly
> claim to be a Righteous Defender of Privacy, but don't even hesitate before
> publishing hacked private emails when it suits you.
>
> Satoshi's hacker had no illusions about your horrible personality, which is
> why he forwarded that email to you specifically. He knew you'd use it. You
> should reflect on that fact. It says nothing good about you at all.

As you know I was forwarded that email first, and because I *do* respect
your privacy I consulting with you via private IRC chat first, and as
you wished I didn't publish it. The hacker presumably gave up waiting
for me to do so and published it themselves seven months ago; to make
that clear I linked the source(1) of the email in my message. Those
emails simply are no longer private.

Frankly personal attacks like this - "your hypocrisy really is
bottomless, isn't it?", "Satoshi's hacker had no illusions about your
horrible personality" - simply don't belong on this mailing list and I
think we would all appreciate an apology.

1) https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2g9c0j/satoshi_email_leak/

-- 
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
000000000000000012a3e40d5ee5c7fc2fb8367b720a9d499468ceb25366c1f3

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 650 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2015-05-07 14:04   ` Jeff Garzik

  2015-05-07 14:38     ` Justus Ranvier
  
From: Peter Todd @ 2015-05-07 14:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Jeff Garzik;  Bitcoin Dev

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2057 bytes --]

On Thu, May 07, 2015 at 10:04:21AM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> I have a lot more written down, a WIP; here are the highlights.
> 
> - The 1MB limit is an ancient anti-spam limit, and needs to go.
> 
> - The 1MB limit is economically entrenched at this point, and cannot be
> removed at a whim.
> 
> - This is a major change to the economics of a $3.2B system.  This change
> picks winners and losers.  There is attendant moral hazard.
> 
> - The core dev team is not and should not be an FOMC.
> 
> - The bar for "major economic change to a $3.2B system" should necessarily
> be high.  In the more boring world of investments, this would accompanied
> by Due Diligence including but not limited to projections for success,
> failure scenarios, upside risks and downside risks.  Projections and
> fact-based simulations.
> 
> - There are significant disruption risks on the pro (change it) and con
> (keep 1MB) sides of the debate.
> 
> - People are privately lobbying Gavin for this.  That is the wrong way to
> go.   I have pushed for a more public debate, and public endorsements (or
> condemnations) from major miners, merchants, payment processors,
> stackholders, ...   It is unfair to criticize Gavin to doing this.

The hard part here will be including the players who aren't individually
"major", but are collectively important; who is the community?

How do you give the small merchants a voice in this discussion? The
small time traders? The small time miners? The people in repressive
countries who are trying to transact on thier own terms?

Legality? Should people involved in 3rd world remittances be
included? Even if what they're doing is technically illegal? What about
dark markets? If DPR voiced his opinion, should we ignore it?

Personally, I'm dubious about trying to make ecosystem-wide decisions
like this without cryptographic consensus; fuzzy human social consensus
is easy to manipulate.

-- 
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
000000000000000013e67b343b1f6d75cc87dfb54430bdb3bcf66d8d4b3ef6b8

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 650 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2015-05-07 14:04   ` Jeff Garzik
  2015-05-07 14:32     ` Peter Todd

  2015-05-07 14:49       ` Peter Todd
  2015-05-07 15:04       ` Jeff Garzik
  
From: Justus Ranvier @ 2015-05-07 14:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: bitcoin-development

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1370 bytes --]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 05/07/2015 04:04 PM, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> - This is a major change to the economics of a $3.2B system.  This
> change picks winners and losers.  There is attendant moral hazard.

This is exactly true.

There are a number of projects which aren't Bitcoin that benefit from
filling in the gap left by Bitcoin's restricted transaction rate
capability.

If Bitcoin fills that gap, Bitcoin wins and those other projects lose.

Should decisions about Bitcoin development take into account the
desires of competing projects?

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJVS3jeAAoJECpf2nDq2eYj3hMP/0yk8HxypEfNa4vZo0IcKD+p
bn2dftQsOEeOenBh8QT48vS3AhcjNkUsw722YwbKz6Znkyi2iU7njaUM9DV+QHwg
Oytmh8XVZtviLgg3854ujdj4oAWyP4DpppVTRxTDyRdSpRj+D9y6+sGFls6z0q3/
XRcKOY23zx6/qN1k5fqUncpIpYEDhpmE7cGy26Yz0G4MtuYeceHT4LdJAHHr0iFL
OY0WVM32b4F3HfkfJtt8rE0yeB7u5dbeu8KmLB0yqZQkY87sLxtT6qeoyHO6CG+N
8Iu9OWaRIZHfrZK2XlDzDKQIkTnlSxFtj4wY7/Yb4NIDO6mhMjYTSz8lWqN4ofKg
9fFHlwGS3QXXDTB+5d1IzZS5C0qF92n1NJiJjkLqhKqYuVn4U74oslZhVLxHBGHH
ZAvW09obZXi5DVzhuxPzlFkpYaB+XLdmBUPEr5hx5K4I2qiL/Nvu0h031UDcMeLm
x9mEHO5ZODlF9tWAVnM/b0VtwT9h6Q88NWe/OUQQZKp6D/Etcd3JE55GBNtNPDnE
2UubyHkNO4mbrEMluh24TvhZK3BB/lieq+kkHZCP7eC58eRY078lSF8R36XGdbn4
Pili15bYSrRrfmjDz24zhJX8759LPt2Zsf/Irc8Za4SoaEaYAqQU4vAmYlZyCNxj
EvxXAasffnjR2K3cnZxr
=YkTz
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[-- Attachment #2: 0xEAD9E623.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-keys, Size: 18381 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
* 
  2015-05-07 14:05         ` Mike Hearn
                             ` 
  2015-05-07 14:40           ` 

  2015-05-07 14:56             ` Peter Todd
                               ` (3 more replies)
  2015-05-07 15:33           ` Jorge Timón
  2015-05-07 15:39           ` Btc Drak
  5 siblings, 4 replies; 115+ messages in thread
From: Gavin Andresen @ 2015-05-07 14:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Mike Hearn;  Bitcoin Dev

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1971 bytes --]

For reference: the blog post that (re)-started this debate, and which links
to individual issues, is here:
  http://gavinandresen.ninja/time-to-roll-out-bigger-blocks

In it, I asked people to email me objections I might have missed. I would
still appreciate it if people do that; it is impossible to keep up with
this mailing list, /r/bitcoin posts and comments, and #bitcoin-wizards and
also have time to respond thoughtfully to the objections raised.

I would very much like to find some concrete course of action that we can
come to consensus on. Some compromise so we can tell entrepreneurs "THIS is
how much transaction volume the main Bitcoin blockchain will be able to
support over the next eleven years."

I've been pretty clear on what I think is a reasonable compromise (a
one-time increase scheduled for early next year), and I have tried to
explain why I think it it is the right set of tradeoffs.

There ARE tradeoffs here, and the hard question is what process do we use
to decide those tradeoffs?  How do we come to consensus? Is it worth my
time to spend hours responding thoughtfully to every new objection raised
here, or will the same thing happen that happened last year and the year
before-- everybody eventually gets tired of arguing
angels-dancing-on-the-head-of-a-pin, and we're left with the status quo?

I AM considering contributing some version of the bigger blocksize-limit
hard-fork patch to the Bitcoin-Xt fork (probably  "target a hobbyist with a
fast Internet connection, and assume Nelson's law to increase over time),
and then encouraging merchants and exchanges and web wallets and
individuals who think it strikes a reasonable balance to run it.

And then, assuming it became a super-majority of nodes on the network,
encourage miners to roll out a soft-fork to start producing bigger blocks
and eventually trigger the hard fork.

Because ultimately consensus comes down to what software people choose to
run.

-- 
--
Gavin Andresen

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2677 bytes --]

^ permalink raw reply	[|nested] 115+ messages in thread
2015-05-07 14:38     ` Justus Ranvier

  2015-05-07 15:13         ` Justus Ranvier
  2015-05-07 15:04       ` Jeff Garzik
  
From: Peter Todd @ 2015-05-07 14:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Justus Ranvier;  bitcoin-development

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1022 bytes --]

On Thu, May 07, 2015 at 04:38:22PM +0200, Justus Ranvier wrote:
> On 05/07/2015 04:04 PM, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> > - This is a major change to the economics of a $3.2B system.  This
> > change picks winners and losers.  There is attendant moral hazard.
> 
> This is exactly true.
> 
> There are a number of projects which aren't Bitcoin that benefit from
> filling in the gap left by Bitcoin's restricted transaction rate
> capability.
> 
> If Bitcoin fills that gap, Bitcoin wins and those other projects lose.
> 
> Should decisions about Bitcoin development take into account the
> desires of competing projects?

Well, basically you're asking if we shouldn't assume the people in this
discussion have honest intentions. If you want to go down that path,
keep in mind where it leads.

I think we'll find an basic assumption of civility to be more
productive, until proven otherwise. (e.g. NSA ties)

-- 
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
00000000000000000d49f263bbbb80f264abc7cc930fc9cbc7ba80ac068d9648

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 650 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
* 
  2015-05-07 14:05         ` Mike Hearn
                             ` 
  2015-05-07 14:52           ` 

  2015-05-07 16:11             ` Mike Hearn
  2015-05-07 15:39           ` Btc Drak
  5 siblings, 1 reply; 115+ messages in thread
From: Jorge Timón @ 2015-05-07 15:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Mike Hearn;  Bitcoin Dev

On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 4:05 PM, Mike Hearn <mike@plan99•net> wrote:
>> If his explanation was "I will change my mind after we increase block
>>
>> size", I guess the community should say "then we will just ignore your
>> nack because it makes no sense".
>
>
> Oh good! We can just kick anyone out of the consensus process if we think
> they make no sense.
>
> I guess that means me and Gavin can remove everyone else from the developer
> consensus, because we think trying to stop Bitcoin growing makes no sense.
>
> Do you see the problem with this whole notion? It cannot possibly work.
> Whenever you try and make the idea of developer consensus work, what you end
> up with is "I believe in consensus as long as it goes my way". Which is
> worthless.

That is not what I said. Then you demonstrated that it was absurd.
That's called a straw man argument and it's a well known fallacy, it
is precisely the example of arguments that can be safely ignored.
It is an argument against my admittedly vague definition of
"non-controversial change".
More importantly, I never said anything about "removing anyone", I was
always talking about arguments and not people.
One person could use fallacious arguments to attack or defend a given
proposal and use perfectly valid ones in another, a person can even
mix valid and invalid arguments in the same mail.

>> One thing is the Bitcoin core project where you could argue that the 5
>> committers decide (I don't know why Wladimir would have any more
>> authority than the others).
>
>
> Because he is formally the maintainer.

Yes, the maintainer of the Bitcoin core free software project (I
cannot stressed this enough, that can be forked by anyone), not the
president of Bitcoin the p2p network.

> Maybe you dislike that idea. It's so .... centralised. So let's say Gavin
> commits his patch, because his authority is equal to all other committers.
> Someone else rolls it back. Gavin sets up a cron job to keep committing the
> patch. Game over.
>
> You cannot have committers fighting over what goes in and what doesn't.
> That's madness. There must be a single decision maker for any given
> codebase.

I'm sure that if they become that stupid, developers would move to a
fork of the project in no time.

>> Ok, so in simple terms, you expect people to have to pay enormous fees
>> and/or wait thousands of blocks for their transactions to get included
>> in the chain. Is that correct?
>
>
> No. I'll write an article like the others, it's better than email for more
> complicated discourse.

Ok, thanks in advance.

>> As others have said, if the answer is "forever, adoption is always the
>> most important thing" then we will end up with an improved version of Visa.
>
>
> This appears to be another one of those fundamental areas of disagreement. I
> believe there is no chance of Bitcoin ending up like Visa, even if it is
> wildly successful. I did the calculations years ago that show that won't
> happen:
>
>     https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Scalability
>
> Decentralisation is a spectrum and Bitcoin will move around on that spectrum
> over time. But claiming we have to pick between 1mb blocks and "Bitcoin =
> VISA" is silly.

Again, I didn't say any of that. My point is that a network that
becomes too "centralized" (like visa, that is centralized vs p2p, not
vs distributed) doesn't offer any security or decentralization
advantage over current networks (and of course I meant that could
happen with larger blocks, not 1 MB blocks).
I'm sure that's not what the proponents of the size increase want, and
I'm not defending 1 MB as a sacred limit  or anything, but my question
is "where is the limit for them?"
Even a limitless block size would technically work because miners
would limit it to limit the orphan rate. So "no hardcoded consensus
limit on transaction volume/block size" could be a valid answer to the
question "what is the right consensus limit to block size?" for which
there's no real right answer because there is a tradeoff between
transaction volume and centralization.

Should we maintain 1 MB forever? Probably not.
Is 20 MB a bad size? I honestly don't know.
Is this urgent? I don't think so.
Should we rush things when we don't have clear answers to many related
questions? I don't think so.

You think that it is too soon to start restricting transaction volume
in any way. You will answer why in your post.
When is the right time and what is the right limitation then?

I want to have fee competition as soon as possible, at least
temporarily. But you say that it can wait for later.
Ok, when do you think we should make that happen then?
When 20 MB are full, will that be the right time to let the fee market
develop then or will it be urgent to increase the block size again?
Should we directly remove the limit then and let miners handle it as
they want?
If so, why not now?
Maybe we can increase to 2 MB, then wait for fee competition, then
wait for 2 more subsidy halvings and then increase to 11 or 20 MB?
There's so many possibilities that I don't understand how can be
surprising that "20 MB, as soon as possible" is not the obvious answer
to everyone...



^ permalink raw reply	[|nested] 115+ messages in thread
2015-05-07 14:52           ` Gavin Andresen

  2015-05-07 15:04             ` Alex Morcos
                               ` (2 subsequent siblings)
  
From: Peter Todd @ 2015-05-07 14:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Gavin Andresen;  Bitcoin Dev

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 823 bytes --]

On Thu, May 07, 2015 at 10:52:54AM -0400, Gavin Andresen wrote:
> I AM considering contributing some version of the bigger blocksize-limit
> hard-fork patch to the Bitcoin-Xt fork (probably  "target a hobbyist with a
> fast Internet connection, and assume Nelson's law to increase over time),
> and then encouraging merchants and exchanges and web wallets and
> individuals who think it strikes a reasonable balance to run it.
> 
> And then, assuming it became a super-majority of nodes on the network,
> encourage miners to roll out a soft-fork to start producing bigger blocks
> and eventually trigger the hard fork.

Would you please explain what you mean by "a soft-fork to start
producing bigger blocks"

-- 
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
00000000000000000d49f263bbbb80f264abc7cc930fc9cbc7ba80ac068d9648

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 650 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2015-05-07 14:52           ` Gavin Andresen
  2015-05-07 14:56             ` Peter Todd

  2015-05-07 15:09               ` Jeff Garzik
  2015-05-07 15:12               ` Mike Hearn
  2015-05-07 15:58             ` Matthew Mitchell
  2015-05-07 17:26             ` Matt Corallo
  
From: Alex Morcos @ 2015-05-07 15:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Gavin Andresen;  Bitcoin Dev

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4160 bytes --]

That strikes me as a dangerous path forward.

I don't actually think there is anything wrong with this: "everybody
eventually gets tired of arguing angels-dancing-on-the-head-of-a-pin, and
we're left with the status quo"

What gives Bitcoin value aren't its technical merits but the fact that
people believe in it.   The biggest risk here isn't that 20MB blocks will
be bad or that 1MB blocks will be bad, but that by forcing a hard fork that
isn't nearly universally agreed upon, we will be damaging that belief.   If
I strongly believed some hard fork would be better for Bitcoin, say
permanent inflation of 1% a year to fund mining, and I managed to convince
80% of users, miners, businesses and developers to go along with me, I
would still vote against doing it.  Because that's not nearly universal
agreement, and it changes what people chose to believe in without their
consent. Forks should be hard, very hard.  And both sides should recognize
that belief in the value of Bitcoin might be a fragile thing.   I'd argue
that if we didn't force through a 20MB fork now, and we ran into major
network difficulties a year from now and had no other technical solutions,
that maybe we would get nearly universal agreement, and the businesses and
users that were driven away by the unusable system would be a short term
loss in value considerably smaller than the impairment we risk by forcing a
change.



On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 10:52 AM, Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail•com>
wrote:

> For reference: the blog post that (re)-started this debate, and which
> links to individual issues, is here:
>   http://gavinandresen.ninja/time-to-roll-out-bigger-blocks
>
> In it, I asked people to email me objections I might have missed. I would
> still appreciate it if people do that; it is impossible to keep up with
> this mailing list, /r/bitcoin posts and comments, and #bitcoin-wizards and
> also have time to respond thoughtfully to the objections raised.
>
> I would very much like to find some concrete course of action that we can
> come to consensus on. Some compromise so we can tell entrepreneurs "THIS is
> how much transaction volume the main Bitcoin blockchain will be able to
> support over the next eleven years."
>
> I've been pretty clear on what I think is a reasonable compromise (a
> one-time increase scheduled for early next year), and I have tried to
> explain why I think it it is the right set of tradeoffs.
>
> There ARE tradeoffs here, and the hard question is what process do we use
> to decide those tradeoffs?  How do we come to consensus? Is it worth my
> time to spend hours responding thoughtfully to every new objection raised
> here, or will the same thing happen that happened last year and the year
> before-- everybody eventually gets tired of arguing
> angels-dancing-on-the-head-of-a-pin, and we're left with the status quo?
>
> I AM considering contributing some version of the bigger blocksize-limit
> hard-fork patch to the Bitcoin-Xt fork (probably  "target a hobbyist with a
> fast Internet connection, and assume Nelson's law to increase over time),
> and then encouraging merchants and exchanges and web wallets and
> individuals who think it strikes a reasonable balance to run it.
>
> And then, assuming it became a super-majority of nodes on the network,
> encourage miners to roll out a soft-fork to start producing bigger blocks
> and eventually trigger the hard fork.
>
> Because ultimately consensus comes down to what software people choose to
> run.
>
> --
> --
> Gavin Andresen
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> One dashboard for servers and applications across Physical-Virtual-Cloud
> Widest out-of-the-box monitoring support with 50+ applications
> Performance metrics, stats and reports that give you Actionable Insights
> Deep dive visibility with transaction tracing using APM Insight.
> http://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/290420510;117567292;y
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 5809 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2015-05-07 14:38     ` Justus Ranvier
  2015-05-07 14:49       ` Peter Todd

  2015-05-07 15:16         ` Justus Ranvier
  
From: Jeff Garzik @ 2015-05-07 15:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Justus Ranvier;  Bitcoin Dev

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 939 bytes --]

On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 10:38 AM, Justus Ranvier <justusranvier@riseup•net>
wrote:

> On 05/07/2015 04:04 PM, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> > - This is a major change to the economics of a $3.2B system.  This
> > change picks winners and losers.  There is attendant moral hazard.
>
> This is exactly true.
>
> There are a number of projects which aren't Bitcoin that benefit from
> filling in the gap left by Bitcoin's restricted transaction rate
> capability.
>
> If Bitcoin fills that gap, Bitcoin wins and those other projects lose.
>
> Should decisions about Bitcoin development take into account the
> desires of competing projects?


heh - I tend to think people here want bitcoin to succeed.  My statement
refers to picking winners and losers from within the existing bitcoin
community & stakeholders.

The existential question of the block size increase is larger - will
failing to increase the 1MB limit permanently stunt bitcoin's growth?

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1388 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2015-05-07 15:04             ` Alex Morcos

  2015-05-07 15:12               ` Mike Hearn
  
From: Jeff Garzik @ 2015-05-07 15:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Alex Morcos;  Bitcoin Dev

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5451 bytes --]

100% agree, RE hard forks should be hard.

However, it is the paradox of growth, morale and adoption that bitcoin
might never reach the point where it is saturated & expensive to the point
where larger blocks are demanded by 95%+...  simply because people and
companies chose not to adopt bitcoin in the first place due to an unmoving,
[perceived | real] scalability roadblock.


On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 11:04 AM, Alex Morcos <morcos@gmail•com> wrote:

> That strikes me as a dangerous path forward.
>
> I don't actually think there is anything wrong with this: "everybody
> eventually gets tired of arguing angels-dancing-on-the-head-of-a-pin, and
> we're left with the status quo"
>
> What gives Bitcoin value aren't its technical merits but the fact that
> people believe in it.   The biggest risk here isn't that 20MB blocks will
> be bad or that 1MB blocks will be bad, but that by forcing a hard fork that
> isn't nearly universally agreed upon, we will be damaging that belief.   If
> I strongly believed some hard fork would be better for Bitcoin, say
> permanent inflation of 1% a year to fund mining, and I managed to convince
> 80% of users, miners, businesses and developers to go along with me, I
> would still vote against doing it.  Because that's not nearly universal
> agreement, and it changes what people chose to believe in without their
> consent. Forks should be hard, very hard.  And both sides should recognize
> that belief in the value of Bitcoin might be a fragile thing.   I'd argue
> that if we didn't force through a 20MB fork now, and we ran into major
> network difficulties a year from now and had no other technical solutions,
> that maybe we would get nearly universal agreement, and the businesses and
> users that were driven away by the unusable system would be a short term
> loss in value considerably smaller than the impairment we risk by forcing a
> change.
>
>
>
> On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 10:52 AM, Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail•com>
> wrote:
>
>> For reference: the blog post that (re)-started this debate, and which
>> links to individual issues, is here:
>>   http://gavinandresen.ninja/time-to-roll-out-bigger-blocks
>>
>> In it, I asked people to email me objections I might have missed. I would
>> still appreciate it if people do that; it is impossible to keep up with
>> this mailing list, /r/bitcoin posts and comments, and #bitcoin-wizards and
>> also have time to respond thoughtfully to the objections raised.
>>
>> I would very much like to find some concrete course of action that we can
>> come to consensus on. Some compromise so we can tell entrepreneurs "THIS is
>> how much transaction volume the main Bitcoin blockchain will be able to
>> support over the next eleven years."
>>
>> I've been pretty clear on what I think is a reasonable compromise (a
>> one-time increase scheduled for early next year), and I have tried to
>> explain why I think it it is the right set of tradeoffs.
>>
>> There ARE tradeoffs here, and the hard question is what process do we use
>> to decide those tradeoffs?  How do we come to consensus? Is it worth my
>> time to spend hours responding thoughtfully to every new objection raised
>> here, or will the same thing happen that happened last year and the year
>> before-- everybody eventually gets tired of arguing
>> angels-dancing-on-the-head-of-a-pin, and we're left with the status quo?
>>
>> I AM considering contributing some version of the bigger blocksize-limit
>> hard-fork patch to the Bitcoin-Xt fork (probably  "target a hobbyist with a
>> fast Internet connection, and assume Nelson's law to increase over time),
>> and then encouraging merchants and exchanges and web wallets and
>> individuals who think it strikes a reasonable balance to run it.
>>
>> And then, assuming it became a super-majority of nodes on the network,
>> encourage miners to roll out a soft-fork to start producing bigger blocks
>> and eventually trigger the hard fork.
>>
>> Because ultimately consensus comes down to what software people choose to
>> run.
>>
>> --
>> --
>> Gavin Andresen
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> One dashboard for servers and applications across Physical-Virtual-Cloud
>> Widest out-of-the-box monitoring support with 50+ applications
>> Performance metrics, stats and reports that give you Actionable Insights
>> Deep dive visibility with transaction tracing using APM Insight.
>> http://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/290420510;117567292;y
>> _______________________________________________
>> Bitcoin-development mailing list
>> Bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>>
>>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> One dashboard for servers and applications across Physical-Virtual-Cloud
> Widest out-of-the-box monitoring support with 50+ applications
> Performance metrics, stats and reports that give you Actionable Insights
> Deep dive visibility with transaction tracing using APM Insight.
> http://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/290420510;117567292;y
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>
>


-- 
Jeff Garzik
Bitcoin core developer and open source evangelist
BitPay, Inc.      https://bitpay.com/

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 7789 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2015-05-07 15:04             ` Alex Morcos
  2015-05-07 15:09               ` Jeff Garzik

  2015-05-07 15:17                 ` Jeff Garzik
  
From: Mike Hearn @ 2015-05-07 15:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Alex Morcos;  Bitcoin Dev

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1574 bytes --]

>
> What gives Bitcoin value aren't its technical merits but the fact that
> people believe in it.
>

Much of the belief in Bitcoin is that it has a bright future. Certainly the
huge price spikes we've seen were not triggered by equally large spikes in
usage - it's speculation on that future.

I quite agree that if people stop believing in Bitcoin, that will be bad. A
fast way to bring that about will be to deliberately cripple the technology
in order to force people onto something quite different (which probably
won't be payment channel networks).


> I'd argue that if we didn't force through a 20MB fork now, and we ran into
> major network difficulties a year from now and had no other technical
> solutions, that maybe we would get nearly universal agreement
>

I doubt it. The disagreement seems more philosophical than technical. If
Bitcoin fell off a cliff then that'd just be taken as more evidence that
block chains don't work and we should all use some network of payment hubs,
or whatever the fashion of the day is. Or anyone who doesn't want to pay
high fees is unimportant. See all the other justifications Gavin is working
his way through on his blog.

That's why I conclude the opposite - if there is no fork, then people's
confidence in Bitcoin will be seriously damaged. If it's impossible to do
something as trivial as removing a temporary hack Satoshi put in place,
then what about bigger challenges? If the community is really willing to
drive itself off a cliff due to political deadlock, then why bother
building things that use Bitcoin at all?

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2221 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2015-05-07 14:49       ` Peter Todd

  2015-05-07 15:25           ` Peter Todd
  
From: Justus Ranvier @ 2015-05-07 15:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: bitcoin-development

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1191 bytes --]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 05/07/2015 04:49 PM, Peter Todd wrote:
> 
> I think we'll find an basic assumption of civility to be more 
> productive, until proven otherwise. (e.g. NSA ties)

I'm not sure why you'd construe my post as having anything to do with
accusations like NSA ties.

By "non-Bitcoin" projects I mean any altcoin or off-chain processing
solution.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=5pB6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[-- Attachment #2: 0xEAD9E623.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-keys, Size: 18381 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2015-05-07 15:04       ` Jeff Garzik

  2015-05-07 15:27           ` Jeff Garzik
  
From: Justus Ranvier @ 2015-05-07 15:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: bitcoin-development

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1574 bytes --]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 05/07/2015 05:04 PM, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> heh - I tend to think people here want bitcoin to succeed.  My
> statement refers to picking winners and losers from within the
> existing bitcoin community & stakeholders.

"Success" is not a sufficiently precise term in this context.

There is a large contingent of people for whom the definition of
Bitcoin "success" means serving as a stable backend which can meet the
needs of their non-Bitcoin platform - and nothing more.

To be extremely specific: should Bitcoin development intenionally
limit the network's capabilities to leave room for other projects, or
should Bitcoin attempt to be the best system possible and let the
other projects try to keep up as best they can?

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=5vaU
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[-- Attachment #2: 0xEAD9E623.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-keys, Size: 18381 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2015-05-07 15:12               ` Mike Hearn

  2015-05-07 15:29                   ` Mike Hearn
  
From: Jeff Garzik @ 2015-05-07 15:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Mike Hearn;  Bitcoin Dev

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 612 bytes --]

On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 11:12 AM, Mike Hearn <mike@plan99•net> wrote:

>
> That's why I conclude the opposite - if there is no fork, then people's
> confidence in Bitcoin will be seriously damaged.
>

Yes, that is a possibility.



> If it's impossible to do something as trivial as removing a temporary hack
> Satoshi put in place, then what about bigger challenges?
>

This is absolutely not a trivial change.

It is a trivial *code* change.  It is not a trivial change to the economics
of a $3.2B system.

-- 
Jeff Garzik
Bitcoin core developer and open source evangelist
BitPay, Inc.      https://bitpay.com/

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1405 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2015-05-07 15:13         ` Justus Ranvier

  
From: Peter Todd @ 2015-05-07 15:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Justus Ranvier;  bitcoin-development

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 748 bytes --]

On Thu, May 07, 2015 at 05:13:34PM +0200, Justus Ranvier wrote:
> On 05/07/2015 04:49 PM, Peter Todd wrote:
> > 
> > I think we'll find an basic assumption of civility to be more 
> > productive, until proven otherwise. (e.g. NSA ties)
> 
> I'm not sure why you'd construe my post as having anything to do with
> accusations like NSA ties.

I'm not.

I'm saying dealing with someone with proven NSA ties is one of the few
times when I think the assumption of honest intent should be ignored in
this forum.

Altcoins and non-Bitcoin-blockchain tx systems? Assuming anything other
than honest intent isn't productive in this forum.

-- 
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
00000000000000000622ff7c71c105480baf123fe74df549b5a42596fd8bfbcb

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 650 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2015-05-07 15:16         ` Justus Ranvier

  2015-05-07 15:33             ` Justus Ranvier
  
From: Jeff Garzik @ 2015-05-07 15:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Justus Ranvier;  Bitcoin Dev

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1466 bytes --]

On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 11:16 AM, Justus Ranvier <justusranvier@riseup•net>
wrote:

> To be extremely specific: should Bitcoin development intenionally
> limit the network's capabilities to leave room for other projects, or
> should Bitcoin attempt to be the best system possible and let the
> other projects try to keep up as best they can?
>


Avoid such narrow, binary thinking.

Referencing the problem described in
http://gavinandresen.ninja/why-increasing-the-max-block-size-is-urgent
(not the solution - block size change - just the problem, tx/block Poisson
mismatch)

This problem - block creation is bursty - is fundamental to bitcoin.
Raising block size does not fix this problem (as [1] notes), but merely
kicks the can down the road a bit, by hiding it from users a bit longer.

Bitcoin is a settlement system, at the most fundamental engineering level.
It will never be an instant payment system for all the world's coffees (or
all the world's stock trades).  It is left to "Layer 2" projects to
engineer around bitcoin's gaps, to produce an instant, secure, trustless,
egalitarian payment system using the bitcoin token.  [1] also notes this.

It is therefore not a binary decision of leaving room for other projects,
or not.  Layer-2 projects are critical to the success of bitcoin, and
complement bitcoin.






[1] http://gavinandresen.ninja/it-must-be-done-but-is-not-a-panacea

Holistic thinking implies you build a full-stack system with bitcoin

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2189 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2015-05-07 15:17                 ` Jeff Garzik

  2015-05-07 15:35                     ` Jeff Garzik
  2015-05-07 16:21                     ` Jorge Timón
  
From: Mike Hearn @ 2015-05-07 15:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Jeff Garzik;  Bitcoin Dev

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 639 bytes --]

>
> It is a trivial *code* change.  It is not a trivial change to the
> economics of a $3.2B system.
>

Hmm - again I'd argue the opposite.

Up until now Bitcoin has been unconstrained by the hard block size limit.

If we raise it, Bitcoin will continue to be unconstrained by it. That's the
default "continue as we are" position.

If it's not raised, then ....... well, then we're in new territory
entirely. Businesses built on the assumption that Bitcoin could become
popular will suddenly have their basic assumptions invalidated. Users will
leave. The technical code change would be zero, but the economic change
would be significant.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1052 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
* 
  2015-05-07 14:05         ` Mike Hearn
                             ` 
  2015-05-07 15:33           ` 

  5 siblings, 0 replies; 115+ messages in thread
From: Btc Drak @ 2015-05-07 15:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Mike Hearn;  Bitcoin Dev

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1034 bytes --]

On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 3:05 PM, Mike Hearn <mike@plan99•net> wrote:
>
> Maybe you dislike that idea. It's so .... centralised. So let's say Gavin
> commits his patch, because his authority is equal to all other committers.
> Someone else rolls it back. Gavin sets up a cron job to keep committing the
> patch. Game over.
>
> You cannot have committers fighting over what goes in and what doesn't.
> That's madness. There must be a single decision maker for any given
> codebase.
>

You are conflating consensus with commit access. People with commit access
are maintainers who are *able to merge* pull requests. However, the rules
for bitcoin development are that only patches with consensus get merged. If
any of the maintainers just pushed a change without going through the whole
code review and consensus process there would be uproar, plain and simple.

Please don't conflate commit access with permission to merge because it's
just not the case. No-one can sidestep the requirement to get consensus,
not even the 5 maintainers.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1502 bytes --]

^ permalink raw reply	[|nested] 115+ messages in thread
2015-05-07 15:27           ` Jeff Garzik

  2015-05-07 15:47               ` Jeff Garzik
  
From: Justus Ranvier @ 2015-05-07 15:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Bitcoin Dev

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1627 bytes --]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 05/07/2015 03:27 PM, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 11:16 AM, Justus Ranvier
> <justusranvier@riseup•net> wrote:
> 
>> To be extremely specific: should Bitcoin development
>> intenionally limit the network's capabilities to leave room for
>> other projects, or should Bitcoin attempt to be the best system
>> possible and let the other projects try to keep up as best they
>> can?
>> 
> 
> 
> Avoid such narrow, binary thinking.

On 05/07/2015 03:25 PM, Peter Todd wrote:
> Altcoins and non-Bitcoin-blockchain tx systems? Assuming anything 
> other than honest intent isn't productive in this forum.
> 


In summary, I asked a question neither you, nor Peter Todd, want to
answer and want to actively discourage people from even asking at all.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2
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=Fcdg
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[-- Attachment #2: 0xEAD9E623.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-keys, Size: 18399 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2015-05-07 15:29                   ` Mike Hearn

  2015-05-07 16:18                       ` Justus Ranvier
  2015-05-07 16:21                     ` Jorge Timón
  
From: Jeff Garzik @ 2015-05-07 15:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Mike Hearn;  Bitcoin Dev

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1530 bytes --]

Yes - but you must recognize that is precisely 50% of the picture.

Others have made different assumptions - taking the [1MB-constrained]
market *as it exists today*, rather than in some projected future.

Raising the block size limit then becomes a *human decision* to favor some
users over others, a *human decision* to prevent an active and competitive
free fee market developing at 1MB, a *human decision* to keep transaction
fees low to incentivize bitcoin adoption, a *human decision* to value
adoption over decentralization.

These statements are not value judgements - not saying you are wrong -
these are observations of some rather huge, relevant blind spots in this
debate.





On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 11:29 AM, Mike Hearn <mike@plan99•net> wrote:

> It is a trivial *code* change.  It is not a trivial change to the
>> economics of a $3.2B system.
>>
>
> Hmm - again I'd argue the opposite.
>
> Up until now Bitcoin has been unconstrained by the hard block size limit.
>
> If we raise it, Bitcoin will continue to be unconstrained by it. That's
> the default "continue as we are" position.
>
> If it's not raised, then ....... well, then we're in new territory
> entirely. Businesses built on the assumption that Bitcoin could become
> popular will suddenly have their basic assumptions invalidated. Users will
> leave. The technical code change would be zero, but the economic change
> would be significant.
>



-- 
Jeff Garzik
Bitcoin core developer and open source evangelist
BitPay, Inc.      https://bitpay.com/

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2460 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2015-05-07 14:05         ` Mike Hearn
                             ` 
  2015-05-07 15:33           ` 

  
From: Btc Drak @ 2015-05-07 15:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Mike Hearn;  Bitcoin Dev

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1034 bytes --]

On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 3:05 PM, Mike Hearn <mike@plan99•net> wrote:
>
> Maybe you dislike that idea. It's so .... centralised. So let's say Gavin
> commits his patch, because his authority is equal to all other committers.
> Someone else rolls it back. Gavin sets up a cron job to keep committing the
> patch. Game over.
>
> You cannot have committers fighting over what goes in and what doesn't.
> That's madness. There must be a single decision maker for any given
> codebase.
>

You are conflating consensus with commit access. People with commit access
are maintainers who are *able to merge* pull requests. However, the rules
for bitcoin development are that only patches with consensus get merged. If
any of the maintainers just pushed a change without going through the whole
code review and consensus process there would be uproar, plain and simple.

Please don't conflate commit access with permission to merge because it's
just not the case. No-one can sidestep the requirement to get consensus,
not even the 5 maintainers.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1502 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2015-05-07 15:33             ` Justus Ranvier

  2015-05-07 15:50                 ` Justus Ranvier
  
From: Jeff Garzik @ 2015-05-07 15:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Justus Ranvier;  Bitcoin Dev

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 508 bytes --]

On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 11:33 AM, Justus Ranvier <justusranvier@riseup•net>
wrote:

> In summary, I asked a question neither you, nor Peter Todd, want to
> answer and want to actively discourage people from even asking at all.
>

Incorrect; your question included built-in assumptions with which I
disagree.

Bitcoin needs to be the best it can be (Layer 1), but all solutions cannot
and should not be implemented at Layer 1.

We need to scale up both bitcoin (L1) and solutions built on top of bitcoin
(L2).

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 902 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2015-05-07 15:47               ` Jeff Garzik

  
From: Justus Ranvier @ 2015-05-07 15:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Bitcoin Dev

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1246 bytes --]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 05/07/2015 05:47 PM, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Bitcoin needs to be the best it can be (Layer 1), but all solutions
> cannot and should not be implemented at Layer 1.

I can provisionally agree with that statement as long as "all
solutions cannot and should not be implemented at Layer 1" it taken to
be a hypothesis to be tested in the context of each proposed solution
rather than a law of nature.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=oRV/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[-- Attachment #2: 0xEAD9E623.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-keys, Size: 18381 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2015-05-06 22:12 Matt Corallo
                   ` 
  2015-05-07 11:20 ` 

  2015-05-07 16:13   ` Mike Hearn
  
From: Jeff Garzik @ 2015-05-07 15:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Matt Corallo;  Bitcoin Dev

Dear list,

Apparently my emails are being marked as spam, despite being sent from
GMail's web interface.  I've pinged our sysadmin.  Thanks for letting
me know.

-- 
Jeff Garzik
Bitcoin core developer and open source evangelist
BitPay, Inc.      https://bitpay.com/



 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
* 
  2015-05-07 14:52           ` Gavin Andresen
                               ` 
  2015-05-07 15:58             ` 

  2015-05-07 17:43               ` Mike Hearn
  3 siblings, 1 reply; 115+ messages in thread
From: Matt Corallo @ 2015-05-07 17:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Gavin Andresen, Mike Hearn;  Bitcoin Dev



On 05/07/15 14:52, Gavin Andresen wrote:
> For reference: the blog post that (re)-started this debate, and which
> links to individual issues, is here:
>   http://gavinandresen.ninja/time-to-roll-out-bigger-blocks
> 
> In it, I asked people to email me objections I might have missed. I
> would still appreciate it if people do that; it is impossible to keep up
> with this mailing list, /r/bitcoin posts and comments, and
> #bitcoin-wizards and also have time to respond thoughtfully to the
> objections raised.

People have been sharing the same objections as on this list for months,
I'm not sure what is new here.

> I would very much like to find some concrete course of action that we
> can come to consensus on. Some compromise so we can tell entrepreneurs
> "THIS is how much transaction volume the main Bitcoin blockchain will be
> able to support over the next eleven years."

I think this is a huge issue. You've been wandering around telling
people that the blocksize will increase soon for months, when there is
very clearly no consensus that it should in the short-term future. The
only answer to this that anyone with a clue should give is "it will
very, very likely be able to support at least 1MB blocks roughly every
10 minutes on average for the next eleven years, and it seems likely
that a block size increase of some form will happen at some point in the
next eleven years", anything else is dishonest.



^ permalink raw reply	[|nested] 115+ messages in thread
2015-05-07 15:33           ` Jorge Timón

  2015-05-07 16:47               ` Jorge Timón
  2015-05-07 19:57               ` Btc Drak
  
From: Mike Hearn @ 2015-05-07 16:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Jorge Timón;  Bitcoin Dev

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3012 bytes --]

>
> It is an argument against my admittedly vague definition of
> "non-controversial change".
>

If it's an argument against something you said, it's not a straw man, right
;)

Consensus has to be defined as agreement between a group of people. Who are
those people? If you don't know, it's impossible to decide when there is
consensus or not.

Right now there is this nice warm fuzzy notion that decisions in Bitcoin
Core are made by consensus. "Controversial" changes are avoided. I am
trying to show you that this is just marketing. Nobody can define what
these terms even mean. It would be more accurate to say decisions are
vetoed by whoever shows up and complains enough, regardless of technical
merit. After all, my own getutxo change was merged after a lot of technical
debate (and trolling) ..... then unmerged a day later because "it's a
shitstorm".

So if Gavin showed up and complained a lot about side chains or whatever,
what you're saying is, oh that's different. We'd ignore him. But when
someone else complains about a change they don't like, that's OK.

Heck, I could easily come up with a dozen reasons to object to almost any
change, if I felt like it. Would I then be considered not a part of the
consensus because that'd be convenient?


> I'm sure that's not what the proponents of the size increase want, and
> I'm not defending 1 MB as a sacred limit  or anything, but my question
> is "where is the limit for them?"
>

20mb is an arbitrary number, just like 1mb. It's good enough to keep the
Bitcoin ecosystem operating as it presently does: gentle growth in usage
with the technology that exists and is implemented. Gavin has discussed in
his blog why he chose 20mb, I think. It's the result of some estimates
based on average network/hardware capabilities.

Perhaps one day 20mb will not be enough. Perhaps then the limit will be
raised again, if there is sufficient demand.

You are correct that "no limit at all" is a possible answer. More
precisely, in that case miners would choose. Gavin's original proposal was
20mb+X where X is decided by some incrementing formula over time, chosen to
approximate expected improvements in hardware and software. That was cool
too. The 20mb figure and the formula were an attempt to address the
concerns of people who are worried about the block size increase:  a
meet-in-the-middle compromise.

Unfortunately it's hard to know what other kinds of meet-in-the-middle
compromise could be made here. I'm sure Gavin would consider them if he
knew. But the concerns provided are too vague to address. There are no
numbers in them, for example:

   - We need more research -> how much more?
   - I'm not against changing the size, just not now -> then when?
   - I'm not wedded to 1mb, but not sure 20mb is right -> then what?
   - Full node count is going down -> then what size do you think would fix
   that? 100kb?
   - It will make mining more centralised -> how do you measure that and
   how much centralisation would you accept?

and so on.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3747 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2015-05-07 15:56 ` Jeff Garzik

  
From: Mike Hearn @ 2015-05-07 16:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Jeff Garzik;  Bitcoin Dev

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 463 bytes --]

>
> Dear list,
>
> Apparently my emails are being marked as spam, despite being sent from
> GMail's web interface.  I've pinged our sysadmin.


It's a problem with the mailing list software, not your setup. BitPay could
disable the phishing protections but that seems like a poor solution. The
only real fix is to send from a non @bitpay.com email address. Gmail or
Hotmail will work, I think. Yahoo won't: they enforce the same strict
policies than bitpay does.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 740 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2015-05-07 15:35                     ` Jeff Garzik

  
From: Justus Ranvier @ 2015-05-07 16:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: bitcoin-development

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1883 bytes --]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 05/07/2015 03:35 PM, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Raising the block size limit then becomes a *human decision* to
> favor some users over others, a *human decision* to prevent an
> active and competitive free fee market developing at 1MB, a *human
> decision* to keep transaction fees low to incentivize bitcoin
> adoption, a *human decision* to value adoption over
> decentralization.

At the moment none of the following assertions have been proven true,
yet are constantly cited as if they have been:

* A competitive fee market will develop when the transaction rate
becomes constrained by the block size limit
* More users of Bitcoin means less decentralization

Furthermore, the term "decentralization" is frequently used without
being precisely defined in a way that would allow for such proofs to
be debated.

If there's going to be a debate on those points, then the people
presenting points on both sides should take the time to show their
work and explain the methodology they used to reach their conclusions.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2
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=+Qmg
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[-- Attachment #2: 0xEAD9E623.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-keys, Size: 18399 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2015-05-07 15:29                   ` Mike Hearn
  2015-05-07 15:35                     ` Jeff Garzik

  2015-05-07 17:29                       ` Peter Todd
  2015-05-07 19:37                       ` Mike Hearn
  
From: Jorge Timón @ 2015-05-07 16:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Mike Hearn;  Bitcoin Dev

On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 4:52 PM, Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail•com> wrote:
> I would very much like to find some concrete course of action that we can
> come to consensus on. Some compromise so we can tell entrepreneurs "THIS is
> how much transaction volume the main Bitcoin blockchain will be able to
> support over the next eleven years."

Mhmm, I hadn't thought about this. This makes sense and actually
explains the urgency on taking a decision better than anything else
I've heard.

On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 5:29 PM, Mike Hearn <mike@plan99•net> wrote:
> If it's not raised, then ....... well, then we're in new territory entirely.
> Businesses built on the assumption that Bitcoin could become popular will
> suddenly have their basic assumptions invalidated. Users will leave. The
> technical code change would be zero, but the economic change would be
> significant.

This, on the other hand, is a non sequitur [1], another type of fallacy.
Well, several of them, actually:

- If it's not raised, then bitcoin cannot become popular
- If it's not raised, then users will leave
- Businesses built on the assumption that Bitcoin could become popular
were also assuming that it's going to be risen.

These statements may even be true, but they're no logical conclusions
even if they seem obvious to you.
I don't think those claims are strictly true, specially because they
involve predictions about what people will do.
But if they're true they require some proof or at least some explanation.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_(logic)#Affirming_the_consequent



 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2015-05-07 15:58             ` Matthew Mitchell

  
From: Matthew Mitchell @ 2015-05-07 16:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: bitcoin-development

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 6015 bytes --]

One thing to add is that perhaps in a future version of Bitcoin Core,
there could be an option for users to continue using the old consensus
rules, or an option to support the new rules (an option when they update
and an ability to change in the settings). Both types of user can
benefit from the software updates and choose with a single piece of
software what they support. Information for whether or not a user is
supporting the changes could be included in the version message.
Possibly this information could be incorporated into transactions also.

If they wish to support the new rules, then their client would support
larger blocks when there is majority miner consensus, otherwise their
clients will always only support the old rules.

This way the decision is not being forced upon the user in any way.

Just an idea.

On 07/05/15 16:58, Matthew Mitchell wrote:
> In my personal opinion, this does make some sense to me, assuming I
> understood Gavin.
> 
> I suppose it could be done with a new flag (like the P2SH flag) which
> displays miner support for larger blocks. The new rules would apply when
> a large majority of miners support the new rules by counting the number
> of flagged blocks over a certain number of blocks on the network in a
> deterministic fashion.
> 
> This way miners can continue to produce blocks which are supported by
> both old and new clients. When it appears most people have migrated to
> the new client, miners can start flagging support for the new rules, and
> when a large majority of miners agree, the new rules would kick in for
> all miners/clients running the new software. Miners could therefore glue
> together the network during the migration phase until enough people have
> updated to avoid severe fork scenarios. The only problem is ensuring
> that miners will continue to support both networks for long enough to
> enable successful migration.
> 
> And if too many people disagree to make a clean hard fork (too many
> people stubbornly stick to the old rules), then it could be that the
> hard fork is aborted and everyone goes back to the old rules, or quite
> simply that the miners never give support for the new rules despite the
> mechanism being included in the new client. In those cases it would be
> as if nothing changed.
> 
> This way the hard fork would be determined by user participation as
> judged by the miners.
> 
> If it is done, I can't think of a fairer way.
> 
> Matthew Mitchell
> 
> On 07/05/15 15:52, Gavin Andresen wrote:
>> For reference: the blog post that (re)-started this debate, and which
>> links to individual issues, is here:
>>   http://gavinandresen.ninja/time-to-roll-out-bigger-blocks
>>
>> In it, I asked people to email me objections I might have missed. I
>> would still appreciate it if people do that; it is impossible to keep up
>> with this mailing list, /r/bitcoin posts and comments, and
>> #bitcoin-wizards and also have time to respond thoughtfully to the
>> objections raised.
>>
>> I would very much like to find some concrete course of action that we
>> can come to consensus on. Some compromise so we can tell entrepreneurs
>> "THIS is how much transaction volume the main Bitcoin blockchain will be
>> able to support over the next eleven years."
>>
>> I've been pretty clear on what I think is a reasonable compromise (a
>> one-time increase scheduled for early next year), and I have tried to
>> explain why I think it it is the right set of tradeoffs.
>>
>> There ARE tradeoffs here, and the hard question is what process do we
>> use to decide those tradeoffs?  How do we come to consensus? Is it worth
>> my time to spend hours responding thoughtfully to every new objection
>> raised here, or will the same thing happen that happened last year and
>> the year before-- everybody eventually gets tired of arguing
>> angels-dancing-on-the-head-of-a-pin, and we're left with the status quo?
>>
>> I AM considering contributing some version of the bigger blocksize-limit
>> hard-fork patch to the Bitcoin-Xt fork (probably  "target a hobbyist
>> with a fast Internet connection, and assume Nelson's law to increase
>> over time), and then encouraging merchants and exchanges and web wallets
>> and individuals who think it strikes a reasonable balance to run it.
>>
>> And then, assuming it became a super-majority of nodes on the network,
>> encourage miners to roll out a soft-fork to start producing bigger
>> blocks and eventually trigger the hard fork.
>>
>> Because ultimately consensus comes down to what software people choose
>> to run.
>>
>> -- 
>> --
>> Gavin Andresen
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> One dashboard for servers and applications across Physical-Virtual-Cloud 
>> Widest out-of-the-box monitoring support with 50+ applications
>> Performance metrics, stats and reports that give you Actionable Insights
>> Deep dive visibility with transaction tracing using APM Insight.
>> http://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/290420510;117567292;y
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Bitcoin-development mailing list
>> Bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>>
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> One dashboard for servers and applications across Physical-Virtual-Cloud 
> Widest out-of-the-box monitoring support with 50+ applications
> Performance metrics, stats and reports that give you Actionable Insights
> Deep dive visibility with transaction tracing using APM Insight.
> http://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/290420510;117567292;y
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
> 


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2015-05-07 16:11             ` Mike Hearn

  2015-05-07 16:59                 ` Gavin Andresen
  2015-05-07 19:57               ` Btc Drak
  
From: Jorge Timón @ 2015-05-07 16:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Mike Hearn;  Bitcoin Dev

On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 6:11 PM, Mike Hearn <mike@plan99•net> wrote:
>> It is an argument against my admittedly vague definition of
>> "non-controversial change".
>
>
> If it's an argument against something you said, it's not a straw man, right
> ;)

Yes, but it was an argument against something I didn't said ;)

> Consensus has to be defined as agreement between a group of people. Who are
> those people? If you don't know, it's impossible to decide when there is
> consensus or not.
>
> Right now there is this nice warm fuzzy notion that decisions in Bitcoin
> Core are made by consensus. "Controversial" changes are avoided. I am trying
> to show you that this is just marketing. Nobody can define what these terms
> even mean. It would be more accurate to say decisions are vetoed by whoever
> shows up and complains enough, regardless of technical merit.

Yes, that's why I drafted a definition for "uncontroversial change"
rather than "change accepted by consensus".
It will still be vague and hard to define, but consensus seems much harder.
And, yes, you're right, it is more like giving power to anyone with
valid arguments to veto hardfork changes.
But as you say, that could lead to make hardforks actually impossible,
so we should limit what constitutes a valid argument.
I later listed some examples of invalid arguments: logical fallacies,
unrelated arguments, outright lies.
Certainly I don't think technical merits should count here or that we
could veto a particular person from vetoing.
We should filter the arguments, not require an identity layer to
blacklist individuals.
We should even accept arguments from anonymous people in the internet
(you know, it wouldn't be the first time).

> Unfortunately it's hard to know what other kinds of meet-in-the-middle
> compromise could be made here. I'm sure Gavin would consider them if he
> knew. But the concerns provided are too vague to address. There are no
> numbers in them, for example:
>
> We need more research -> how much more?

Some research at all about fee market dynamics with limited size that
hasn't happened at all.
If we're increasing the consensus max size maybe we could at least
maintain the 1MB limit as a standard policy limit, so that we can
study it a little bit (like we could have done instead of removing the
initial policy limit).

> I'm not against changing the size, just not now -> then when?

I don't know yet, but I understand now that having a clearer roadmap
is what's actually urgent, not the change itself.

> I'm not wedded to 1mb, but not sure 20mb is right -> then what?

What about 2 MB consensus limit and 1 MB policy limit for now? I know
that's arbitrary too.

> Full node count is going down -> then what size do you think would fix that?
> 100kb?

As others have explained, the number of full nodes is not the
improtant part, but how easy it is to run one.
I think a modest laptop with the average internet connection of say,
India or Brazil, should be able to run a full node.
I haven't made those numbers myself but I'm sure that's possible with
1 MB blocks today, and probably with 2 MB blocks too.

> It will make mining more centralised -> how do you measure that and how much
> centralisation would you accept?

This is an excellent question for both sides.
Unfortunately I don't know the answer to this. Do you?



 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
From: John Bodeen @ 2015-05-07 16:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: bitcoin-development

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 333 bytes --]

If the worry about raising the block size will increase centralization,
could not one could imagine an application which rewarded decentralized
storage of block data? It could even be build aside or on top of the
existing bitcoin protocol.

See the Permacoin paper by Andrew Miller:
http://cs.umd.edu/~amiller/permacoin.pdf

Regards

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 459 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2015-05-07 16:47               ` Jorge Timón

  2015-05-07 17:42                   ` Peter Todd
  2015-05-07 18:05                   ` Jorge Timón
  
From: Gavin Andresen @ 2015-05-07 16:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Jorge Timón;  Bitcoin Dev

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 537 bytes --]

Fee dynamics seems to come up over and over again in these discussions,
with lots of talk and theorizing.

I hope some data on what is happening with fees right now might help, so I
wrote another blog post (with graphs, which can't be done in a mailing list
post):
   http://gavinandresen.ninja/the-myth-of-not-full-blocks

We don’t need 100% full one megabyte blocks to start to learn about what is
likely to happen as transaction volume rises and/or the one megabyte block
size limit is raised.

-- 
--
Gavin Andresen

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 823 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2015-05-07 14:52           ` Gavin Andresen
                               ` 
  2015-05-07 15:58             ` 

  2015-05-07 17:43               ` Mike Hearn
  
From: Matt Corallo @ 2015-05-07 17:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Gavin Andresen, Mike Hearn;  Bitcoin Dev



On 05/07/15 14:52, Gavin Andresen wrote:
> For reference: the blog post that (re)-started this debate, and which
> links to individual issues, is here:
>   http://gavinandresen.ninja/time-to-roll-out-bigger-blocks
> 
> In it, I asked people to email me objections I might have missed. I
> would still appreciate it if people do that; it is impossible to keep up
> with this mailing list, /r/bitcoin posts and comments, and
> #bitcoin-wizards and also have time to respond thoughtfully to the
> objections raised.

People have been sharing the same objections as on this list for months,
I'm not sure what is new here.

> I would very much like to find some concrete course of action that we
> can come to consensus on. Some compromise so we can tell entrepreneurs
> "THIS is how much transaction volume the main Bitcoin blockchain will be
> able to support over the next eleven years."

I think this is a huge issue. You've been wandering around telling
people that the blocksize will increase soon for months, when there is
very clearly no consensus that it should in the short-term future. The
only answer to this that anyone with a clue should give is "it will
very, very likely be able to support at least 1MB blocks roughly every
10 minutes on average for the next eleven years, and it seems likely
that a block size increase of some form will happen at some point in the
next eleven years", anything else is dishonest.



 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2015-05-07 16:21                     ` Jorge Timón

  2015-05-07 19:37                       ` Mike Hearn
  
From: Peter Todd @ 2015-05-07 17:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Jorge Timón;  Bitcoin Dev

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1868 bytes --]

On Thu, May 07, 2015 at 06:21:50PM +0200, Jorge Timón wrote:
> On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 4:52 PM, Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail•com> wrote:
> > I would very much like to find some concrete course of action that we can
> > come to consensus on. Some compromise so we can tell entrepreneurs "THIS is
> > how much transaction volume the main Bitcoin blockchain will be able to
> > support over the next eleven years."
> 
> Mhmm, I hadn't thought about this. This makes sense and actually
> explains the urgency on taking a decision better than anything else
> I've heard.

I've spent a lot of time talking to companies about this, and the
problem is telling them that isn't actually very useful; knowing the
supply side of the equation isn't all that useful if you don't know the
demand side. Problem is we don't really have a good handle on what
Bitcoin will be used for in the future, or even for that matter, what
it's actually being used for right now.

As we saw with Satoshidice before and quite possibly will see with smart
contracts (escrows, futures, etc) it's easy for a relatively small
number of use cases to drive a significant amount of transaction volume.
Yet, as Wladimir and others point out, the fundemental underlying
architecture of the blockchain has inherently poor O(n^2) scaling, so
there's always some level of demand where it breaks, and/or incentivizes
actors in the space to push up against "safety stops" like soft
blocksize limits and get them removed.

Note how the response previously to bumping up against soft policy
limits was highly public calls(1) at the first hint of touble: "Mike
Hearn: Soft block size limit reached, action required by YOU"

1) https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=149668.0

-- 
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
000000000000000002761482983864328320badf24d137101fab9a5861a59d30

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 650 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2015-05-07 16:59                 ` Gavin Andresen

  2015-05-07 18:05                   ` Jorge Timón
  
From: Peter Todd @ 2015-05-07 17:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Gavin Andresen;  Bitcoin Dev

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1551 bytes --]

On Thu, May 07, 2015 at 12:59:13PM -0400, Gavin Andresen wrote:
> Fee dynamics seems to come up over and over again in these discussions,
> with lots of talk and theorizing.
> 
> I hope some data on what is happening with fees right now might help, so I
> wrote another blog post (with graphs, which can't be done in a mailing list
> post):
>    http://gavinandresen.ninja/the-myth-of-not-full-blocks
> 
> We don’t need 100% full one megabyte blocks to start to learn about what is
> likely to happen as transaction volume rises and/or the one megabyte block
> size limit is raised.

Sounds like you're saying we are bumping up against a 1MB limit. However
other than the occasional user who has sent a transaction with an
extremely low/no fee, what evidence do we have that this is or is not
actually impacting meaningful usage form the user's point of view?

Do we have evidence as to how users are coping? e.g. do they send time
sensitive transactiosn with higher fees? Are people conciously moving
low value transactions off the blockchain? Equally, what about the story
with companies? You of course are an advisor to Coinbase, and could give
us some insight into the type of planning payment processors/wallets are
doing.  For instance, does Coinbase have any plans to work with other
wallet providers/payment processors to aggregate fund transfers between
wallet providers - an obvious payment channel application.

-- 
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
00000000000000000232164c96eaa6bf7cbc3dc61ea055840715b5a81ee8f6be

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 650 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2015-05-07 17:26             ` Matt Corallo

  2015-05-07 18:03                 ` Btc Drak
  2015-05-07 19:03                 ` Matt Corallo
  
From: Mike Hearn @ 2015-05-07 17:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Matt Corallo;  Bitcoin Dev

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 930 bytes --]

> The only answer to this that anyone with a clue should give is "it
> will very, very likely be able to support at least 1MB blocks roughly
> every 10 minutes on average for the next eleven years, and it seems
> likely that a block size increase of some form will happen at some point in
> the next eleven years", anything else is dishonest.


Matt, you know better than that. Gavin neither lacks clue nor is he
dishonest.

He has been working on the assumption that other developers are reasonable,
and some kind of compromise solution can be found that everyone can live
with. Hence trying to find a middle ground, hence considering and writing
articles in response to every single objection raised. Hence asking for
suggestions on what to change about the plan, to make it more acceptable.
What more do you want, exactly?

And I'll ask again. Do you have a *specific, credible alternative*? Because
so far I'm not seeing one.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1355 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2015-05-07 17:43               ` Mike Hearn

  2015-05-07 18:06                   ` Mike Hearn
  2015-05-07 18:38                   ` Chris Wardell
  2015-05-07 19:03                 ` Matt Corallo
  
From: Btc Drak @ 2015-05-07 18:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Mike Hearn;  Bitcoin Dev

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 424 bytes --]

On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 6:43 PM, Mike Hearn <mike@plan99•net> wrote:
>
> And I'll ask again. Do you have a *specific, credible alternative*?
> Because so far I'm not seeing one.
>

I think you are rubbing against your own presupposition that people must
find and alternative right now. Quite a lot here do not believe there is
any urgency, nor that there is an immanent problem that has to be solved
before the sky falls in.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 785 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2015-05-07 16:59                 ` Gavin Andresen
  2015-05-07 17:42                   ` Peter Todd

  
From: Jorge Timón @ 2015-05-07 18:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Gavin Andresen;  Bitcoin Dev

On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 6:59 PM, Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail•com> wrote:
> Fee dynamics seems to come up over and over again in these discussions, with
> lots of talk and theorizing.
>
> I hope some data on what is happening with fees right now might help, so I
> wrote another blog post (with graphs, which can't be done in a mailing list
> post):
>    http://gavinandresen.ninja/the-myth-of-not-full-blocks
>
> We don’t need 100% full one megabyte blocks to start to learn about what is
> likely to happen as transaction volume rises and/or the one megabyte block
> size limit is raised.

Ok, the fact that the fee increases the probability of getting
included faster already is a good thing, the graphs with the
probability of getting included in the next block were less important
to me.
Although scarce space (beyond what miners chose to limit by
themselves) would increase the fee competition, I didn't knew that
there is actually some competition happening already.
So I guess this diminishes the argument for maintaining the limits
longer to observe the results of more scarce space.
Still, I think maintaining a lower policy limit it's a good idea, even
if we decide not to use it to observe that soon.
For example, say we chose the 20 MB consensus limit, we can maintain
the policy limit at 1 MB or move it to 2 MB, and slowly moving it up
later as needed without requiring everyone to upgrade.
Of course, not all miners have to follow the standard policy, but at
least it's something.
So please take this as a suggestion to improve your proposal. You can
argue it like this "if we want to maintain the limits after the
hardfork or increase them slowly, for observing fee dynamics with more
scarce space or for any other reason, those limits can be partially
enforced by the standard policy". I mean, I think that could be a
reasonable compromise for that concrete line of arguments.



 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2015-05-07 18:03                 ` Btc Drak

  2015-05-07 18:21                     ` Ross Nicoll
                                       ` (2 more replies)
  2015-05-07 18:38                   ` Chris Wardell
  
From: Mike Hearn @ 2015-05-07 18:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Btc Drak;  Bitcoin Dev

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 548 bytes --]

>
> I think you are rubbing against your own presupposition that people must
> find and alternative right now. Quite a lot here do not believe there is
> any urgency, nor that there is an immanent problem that has to be solved
> before the sky falls in.
>

I have explained why I believe there is some urgency, whereby "some
urgency" I mean, assuming it takes months to implement, merge, test,
release and for people to upgrade.

But if it makes you happy, imagine that this discussion happens all over
again next year and I ask the same question.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 891 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2015-05-07 18:06                   ` Mike Hearn

  2015-05-07 18:40                     ` Gavin Costin
  2015-05-07 19:31                     ` Alan Reiner
  
From: Ross Nicoll @ 2015-05-07 18:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Bitcoin Dev

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2745 bytes --]

Can I just add my own support for this - as has been stated elsewhere in 
this discussion, hard forks are difficult, and risky. The earlier we 
have a decision, and the earlier the change goes into the code, the 
easier that is.

Even if the decision was the actual block size change is fine to leave 
until 2020, I'd like to see the code committed ASAP so that every new 
install, and every upgrade from there on gets the new version.

My personal opinion only is that 7 transactions a second is insanely 
limited even if the main chain does nothing but act as a backbone 
between other chains and transaction networks. I don't think that's 
overly controversial. I think 2016 is too early for a 20mb block size, 
though. I'm inclined to suggest a schedule of expansion, say to 2mb in 
2016, 4mb in 2018, 8mb in 2020 and 20mb in 2022 where it stops. The 
intent would be to provide enough size pressure to motivate scaling 
work, while not limiting Bitcoin overly.

Further, I think this highlights that we need more work on fees. Right 
now fees and transactions included are fairly naive, but I'd like to see 
the absolute block size limit as a hard upper bound, with miners 
imposing soft limits based on a balance cost of storage, number of 
outputs vs inputs (and therefore impact on the UTXOs), and risk of 
orphan blocks to determine which transactions are actually worth 
including in each block. If anyone has numbers on block size vs orphan 
rate that would be really useful, BTW.

Ross

On 07/05/2015 19:06, Mike Hearn wrote:
>
>     I think you are rubbing against your own presupposition that
>     people must find and alternative right now. Quite a lot here do
>     not believe there is any urgency, nor that there is an immanent
>     problem that has to be solved before the sky falls in.
>
>
> I have explained why I believe there is some urgency, whereby "some 
> urgency" I mean, assuming it takes months to implement, merge, test, 
> release and for people to upgrade.
>
> But if it makes you happy, imagine that this discussion happens all 
> over again next year and I ask the same question.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> One dashboard for servers and applications across Physical-Virtual-Cloud
> Widest out-of-the-box monitoring support with 50+ applications
> Performance metrics, stats and reports that give you Actionable Insights
> Deep dive visibility with transaction tracing using APM Insight.
> http://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/290420510;117567292;y
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development


[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 4501 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2015-05-07 18:03                 ` Btc Drak
  2015-05-07 18:06                   ` Mike Hearn

  2015-05-07 18:55                     ` Alex Mizrahi
  2015-05-07 18:59                     ` Ross Nicoll
  
From: Chris Wardell @ 2015-05-07 18:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Bitcoin Dev

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 195 bytes --]

Instead of raising the block size to another static number like 20MB, can
we raise it dynamically?

Make the max block size something like:
pow(2, nHeight/100000) * 1MB;  //double every ~2 years

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 268 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2015-05-07 18:06                   ` Mike Hearn
  2015-05-07 18:21                     ` Ross Nicoll

  2015-05-07 18:46                       ` Btc Drak
  2015-05-07 19:31                     ` Alan Reiner
  
From: Gavin Costin @ 2015-05-07 18:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Mike Hearn, Btc Drak;  Bitcoin Dev

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1684 bytes --]

Can anyone opposed to this proposal articulate in plain english the worst
case scenario(s) if it goes ahead?

Some people in the conversation appear to be uncomfortable, perturbed,
defensive etc about the proposal Š. But I am not seeing specifics on why it
is not a feasible plan.

From:  Mike Hearn <mike@plan99•net>
Date:  Friday, 8 May, 2015 2:06 am
To:  Btc Drak <btcdrak@gmail•com>
Cc:  Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net>
Subject:  Re: [Bitcoin-development] Block Size Increase

> I think you are rubbing against your own presupposition that people must find
> and alternative right now. Quite a lot here do not believe there is any
> urgency, nor that there is an immanent problem that has to be solved before
> the sky falls in.

I have explained why I believe there is some urgency, whereby "some urgency"
I mean, assuming it takes months to implement, merge, test, release and for
people to upgrade.

But if it makes you happy, imagine that this discussion happens all over
again next year and I ask the same question.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- One dashboard for servers and applications across Physical-Virtual-Cloud
Widest out-of-the-box monitoring support with 50+ applications Performance
metrics, stats and reports that give you Actionable Insights Deep dive
visibility with transaction tracing using APM Insight.
http://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/290420510;117567292;y_____________________
__________________________ Bitcoin-development mailing list
Bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development


[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3425 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2015-05-07 18:40                     ` Gavin Costin

  2015-05-07 19:31                         ` Bernard Rihn
  
From: Btc Drak @ 2015-05-07 18:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Gavin Costin;  Bitcoin Dev

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 493 bytes --]

On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 7:40 PM, Gavin Costin <slashdevnull@hotmail•com>
wrote:

> Can anyone opposed to this proposal articulate in plain english the worst
> case scenario(s) if it goes ahead?
>
> Some people in the conversation appear to be uncomfortable, perturbed,
> defensive etc about the proposal …. But I am not seeing specifics on why it
> is not a feasible plan.
>

See this response:
http://www.mail-archive.com/bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net/msg07462.html

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1085 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2015-05-07 18:38                   ` Chris Wardell

  2015-05-07 18:59                     ` Ross Nicoll
  
From: Alex Mizrahi @ 2015-05-07 18:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Bitcoin Dev

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 476 bytes --]

Just to add to the noise, did you consider linear growth?

Unlike exponential growth, it approximates diminishing returns (i.e. tech
advances become slower with time). And unlike single step, it will give
people time to adapt to new realities.

E.g. 2 MB in 2016, 3 MB in 2017 and so on.
So in 20 years we'll get to 20 MB which "ought to be enough for anybody".
But if miners will find 20 MB blocks too overwhelming, they can limit it
through soft work, based on actual data.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 803 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2015-05-07 18:38                   ` Chris Wardell
  2015-05-07 18:55                     ` Alex Mizrahi

  
From: Ross Nicoll @ 2015-05-07 18:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: bitcoin-development

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1507 bytes --]

I'm presuming that schedule is just an example, as you'd end up with 
insanely large block sizes in a few years.

Absolutely, yes, an increase schedule is an option if people agree on 
it, and I think the better option, as the current limit too low, but 
jumping straight to a value big enough for "indefinitely" is a huge jump.

Gave some thought to scaling block size based on transaction fees, but 
suspect it would end up with miners sending huge fees to themselves with 
transactions that aren't relayed (so they only are actioned if they make 
it into a block that miner mines) to make the network allow bigger blocks.

Ross

On 07/05/2015 19:38, Chris Wardell wrote:
> Instead of raising the block size to another static number like 20MB, 
> can we raise it dynamically?
>
> Make the max block size something like:
> pow(2, nHeight/100000) * 1MB;  //double every ~2 years
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> One dashboard for servers and applications across Physical-Virtual-Cloud
> Widest out-of-the-box monitoring support with 50+ applications
> Performance metrics, stats and reports that give you Actionable Insights
> Deep dive visibility with transaction tracing using APM Insight.
> http://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/290420510;117567292;y
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development


[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2708 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2015-05-07 17:43               ` Mike Hearn
  2015-05-07 18:03                 ` Btc Drak

  2015-05-07 19:13                   ` Jeff Garzik
  2015-05-07 19:34                   ` Mike Hearn
  
From: Matt Corallo @ 2015-05-07 19:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Mike Hearn;  Bitcoin Dev

Replies inline.

On 05/07/15 17:43, Mike Hearn wrote:
>     The only answer to this that anyone with a clue should give is "it
>     will very, very likely be able to support at least 1MB blocks
>     roughly every 10 minutes on average for the next eleven years, and
>     it seems likely that a block size increase of some form will happen
>     at some point in the next eleven years", anything else is dishonest.
> 
> 
> Matt, you know better than that. Gavin neither lacks clue nor is he
> dishonest. 

No, I dont think Gavin is being deliberately dishonest, and I'm rather
confident he phrased everything in a way that is technically true (ie
the quote in his response). However, others have definitely not taken
away the correct interpretation of what he said, and this is a serious
problem. Setting expectations correctly as this is a very contentious
issue and one that does not appear to be reaching consensus quickly in
the technical community is important.
More generally, consider the situation we're in now. Gavin is going off
pitching this idea to the general public (which, I agree, is an
important step in pulling off a hardfork) while people who actually
study the issues are left wondering why they're being ignored (ie why is
there no consensus-building happening on this list?).


> He has been working on the assumption that other developers are
> reasonable, and some kind of compromise solution can be found that
> everyone can live with. Hence trying to find a middle ground, hence
> considering and writing articles in response to every single objection
> raised. Hence asking for suggestions on what to change about the plan,
> to make it more acceptable. What more do you want, exactly?

The appropriate method of doing any fork, that we seem to have been
following for a long time, is to get consensus here and on IRC and on
github and *then* go pitch to the general public (either directly or by
releasing software) that they should upgrade. I admit that hardforks are
a bit different in that the level of software upgrade required means
additional lead time, but I'm not sure that means starting the
public-pitching phase before there is any kind of consensus forming
(actually, I'd point out that to me there seems to be rahter clear
consensus outside of you and Gavin that we should delay increasing block
size).
As far as I can tell, there has been no discussion of block sizes on
this list since 2013, and while I know Gavin has had many private
conversations with people in this community about the block size, very
little if any of it has happened in public.
If, instead, there had been an intro on the list as "I think we should
do the blocksize increase soon, what do people think?", the response
could likely have focused much more around creating a specific list of
things we should do before we (the technical community) think we are
prepared for a blocksize increase.

> And I'll ask again. Do you have a *specific, credible alternative*?
> Because so far I'm not seeing one.

A specific credible alternative to what? Committing to blocksize
increases tomorrow? Yes, doing more research into this and developing
software around supporting larger block sizes so people feel comfortable
doing it in six months. I acknowledge that Gavin has been putting a lot
of effort into this front, but, judging by this thread, I am far from
the only one who thinks much more needs done.



 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2015-05-07 19:03                 ` Matt Corallo

  2015-05-07 19:34                   ` Mike Hearn
  
From: Jeff Garzik @ 2015-05-07 19:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Matt Corallo;  Bitcoin Dev

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1289 bytes --]

On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 3:03 PM, Matt Corallo <bitcoin-list@bluematt•me>
wrote:
> More generally, consider the situation we're in now. Gavin is going off
> pitching this idea to the general public (which, I agree, is an
> important step in pulling off a hardfork) while people who actually
> study the issues are left wondering why they're being ignored (ie why is
> there no consensus-building happening on this list?).

This sub-thread threatens to veer off into he-said-she-said.

> If, instead, there had been an intro on the list as "I think we should
> do the blocksize increase soon, what do people think?", the response
> could likely have focused much more around creating a specific list of
> things we should do before we (the technical community) think we are
> prepared for a blocksize increase.

Agreed, but that is water under the bridge at this point.  You - rightly -
opened the topic here and now we're discussing it.

Mike and Gavin are due the benefit of doubt because making a change to a
leaderless automaton powered by leaderless open source software is breaking
new ground.  I don't focus so much on how we got to this point, but rather,
where we go from here.

-- 
Jeff Garzik
Bitcoin core developer and open source evangelist
BitPay, Inc.      https://bitpay.com/

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1587 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2015-05-07 11:29     ` Mike Hearn
  2015-05-07 12:26       ` Jorge Timón
  2015-05-07 13:02       ` Peter Todd

  
From: Matt Corallo @ 2015-05-07 19:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Mike Hearn, Jorge Timón;  Bitcoin Dev

On 05/07/15 11:29, Mike Hearn wrote:
>     Can you please elaborate on what terrible things will happen if we
>     don't increase the block size by winter this year?
> 
> 
> I was referring to winter next year. 0.12 isn't scheduled until the end
> of the year, according to Wladimir. I explained where this figure comes
> from in this article:

On a related note, I'd like to agree strongly with Peter Todd that we
should get away from doing forks-only-in-releases. We can add code to do
a fork and then enable it in 0.11.1 or 0.11.11 if Gavin prefers more 11s.



 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2015-05-07 18:46                       ` Btc Drak

  
From: Bernard Rihn @ 2015-05-07 19:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Bitcoin Dev

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2670 bytes --]

It seems to me like some (maybe most) of the pressure is actually external
from companies that might release something that dramatically increases
"adoption" & transaction rates (and that the data on historic rate of
adoption & slumps is somewhat disconnected from their interests in a quick
roll-out)?

It seems like the question actually becomes what is our maximum acceptable
cost (hardware capex & bandwidth & power opex) associated with running a
full node without hardware acceleration and with hardware acceleration
(something which presumably "doesn't exist" yet)? Are we making the
assumption that hardware acceleration for confirmation will become broadly
available and that the primary limiter will become anonymous bandwidth?

Excuse my ignorance, but I imagine somebody must have already looked at
confirmation times vs. block size for various existing hardware platforms
(like at least 3 or 4? maybe a minnowboard, old laptop, and modern desktop
at least?)? Is there an easy way to setup bitcoind or some other script to
test this? (happy to help)

Re Moore's law: yeah, some say stuff like 5nm may never happen. We're
already using EUV with plasma emitters, immersed reflective optics, and
double-patterning... and in storage land switching to helium. Things may
slow A LOT over the next couple decades and I'd guess that a quadratic
increase (both in storage & compute) probably isn't a safe assumption.

On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 11:46 AM, Btc Drak <btcdrak@gmail•com> wrote:

> On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 7:40 PM, Gavin Costin <slashdevnull@hotmail•com>
> wrote:
>
>> Can anyone opposed to this proposal articulate in plain english the worst
>> case scenario(s) if it goes ahead?
>>
>> Some people in the conversation appear to be uncomfortable, perturbed,
>> defensive etc about the proposal …. But I am not seeing specifics on why it
>> is not a feasible plan.
>>
>
> See this response:
> http://www.mail-archive.com/bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net/msg07462.html
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> One dashboard for servers and applications across Physical-Virtual-Cloud
> Widest out-of-the-box monitoring support with 50+ applications
> Performance metrics, stats and reports that give you Actionable Insights
> Deep dive visibility with transaction tracing using APM Insight.
> http://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/290420510;117567292;y
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3943 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2015-05-07 18:06                   ` Mike Hearn
  2015-05-07 18:21                     ` Ross Nicoll
  2015-05-07 18:40                     ` Gavin Costin

  2015-05-07 19:54                       ` Jeff Garzik
                                         ` (2 more replies)
  
From: Alan Reiner @ 2015-05-07 19:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: bitcoin-development

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3765 bytes --]

This *is* urgent and needs to be handled right now, and I believe Gavin
has the best approach to this.  I have heard Gavin's talks on increasing
the block size, and the two most persuasive points to me were:

(1) Blocks are essentially nearing "full" now.  And by "full" he means
that the reliability of the network (from the average user perspective)
is about to be impacted in a very negative way (I believe it was due to
the inconsistent time between blocks).  I think Gavin said that his
simulations showed 400 kB - 600 kB worth of transactions per 10 min
(approx 3-4 tps) is where things start to behave poorly for certain
classes of transactions.  In other words, we're very close to the
effective limit in terms of maintaining the current "standard of
living", and with a year needed to raise the block time this actually is
urgent.

(2) Leveraging fee pressure at 1MB to solve the problem is actually
really a bad idea.  It's really bad while Bitcoin is still growing, and
relying on fee pressure at 1 MB severely impacts attractiveness and
adoption potential of Bitcoin (due to high fees and unreliability).  But
more importantly, it ignores the fact that for a 7 tps is pathetic for a
global transaction system.  It is a couple orders of magnitude too low
for any meaningful commercial activity to occur.  If we continue with a
cap of 7 tps forever, Bitcoin *will* fail.  Or at best, it will fail to
be useful for the vast majority of the world (which probably leads to
failure).  We shouldn't be talking about fee pressure until we hit 700
tps, which is probably still too low. 

You can argue that side chains and payment channels could alleviate
this.  But how far off are they?  We're going to hit effective 1MB
limits long before we can leverage those in a meaningful way.  Even if
everyone used them, getting a billion people onto the system just can't
happen even at 1 transaction per year per person to get into a payment
channel or move money between side chains.

We get asked all the time by corporate clients about scalability.  A
limit of 7 tps makes them uncomfortable that they are going to invest
all this time into a system that has no chance of handling the economic
activity that they expect it handle.  We always assure them that 7 tps
is not the final answer. 

Satoshi didn't believe 1 MB blocks were the correct answer.  I
personally think this is critical to Bitcoin's long term future.   And
I'm not sure what else Gavin could've done to push this along in a
meaninful way.

-Alan


On 05/07/2015 02:06 PM, Mike Hearn wrote:
>
>     I think you are rubbing against your own presupposition that
>     people must find and alternative right now. Quite a lot here do
>     not believe there is any urgency, nor that there is an immanent
>     problem that has to be solved before the sky falls in.
>
>
> I have explained why I believe there is some urgency, whereby "some
> urgency" I mean, assuming it takes months to implement, merge, test,
> release and for people to upgrade.
>
> But if it makes you happy, imagine that this discussion happens all
> over again next year and I ask the same question.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> One dashboard for servers and applications across Physical-Virtual-Cloud 
> Widest out-of-the-box monitoring support with 50+ applications
> Performance metrics, stats and reports that give you Actionable Insights
> Deep dive visibility with transaction tracing using APM Insight.
> http://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/290420510;117567292;y
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development


[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 5655 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2015-05-07 19:03                 ` Matt Corallo
  2015-05-07 19:13                   ` Jeff Garzik

  2015-05-07 21:29                     ` Matt Corallo
  
From: Mike Hearn @ 2015-05-07 19:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Matt Corallo;  Bitcoin Dev

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1886 bytes --]

>
> The appropriate method of doing any fork, that we seem to have been
> following for a long time, is to get consensus here and on IRC and on
> github and *then* go pitch to the general public


So your concern is just about the ordering and process of things, and not
about the change itself?

I have witnessed many arguments in IRC about block sizes over the years.
There was another one just a few weeks ago. Pieter left the channel for his
own sanity. IRC is not a good medium for arriving at decisions on things -
many people can't afford to sit on IRC all day and conversations can be
hard to follow. Additionally, they tend to go circular.

That said, I don't know if you can draw a line between the "ins" and "outs"
like that. The general public is watching, commenting and deciding no
matter what. Might as well deal with that and debate in a format more
accessible to all.


> If, instead, there had been an intro on the list as "I think we should
> do the blocksize increase soon, what do people think?"


There have been many such discussions over time. On bitcointalk. On reddit.
On IRC. At developer conferences. Gavin already knew what many of the
objections would be, which is why he started answering them.

But alright. Let's say he should have started a thread. Thanks for starting
it for him.

Now, can we get this specific list of things we should do before we're
prepared?


> A specific credible alternative to what? Committing to blocksize
> increases tomorrow? Yes, doing more research into this and developing
> software around supporting larger block sizes so people feel comfortable
> doing it in six months.


Do you have a specific research suggestion? Gavin has run simulations
across the internet with modified full nodes that use 20mb blocks, using
real data from the block chain. They seem to suggest it works OK.

What software do you have in mind?

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2581 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2015-05-07 16:21                     ` Jorge Timón
  2015-05-07 17:29                       ` Peter Todd

  2015-05-07 19:44                         ` Jérémie Dubois-Lacoste
  2015-05-07 20:20                         ` Jérémie Dubois-Lacoste
  
From: Mike Hearn @ 2015-05-07 19:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Jorge Timón;  Bitcoin Dev

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 534 bytes --]

> These statements may even be true, but they're no logical conclusions
> even if they seem obvious to you.
> I don't think those claims are strictly true, specially because they
> involve predictions about what people will do.
> But if they're true they require some proof or at least some explanation.
>

Thank you for your patience, Jorge.

I have written up an explanation of what I think will happen if we run out
of capacity:

   https://medium.com/@octskyward/crash-landing-f5cc19908e32

Now I'm going to go eat some dinner :)

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1000 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2015-05-07 19:37                       ` Mike Hearn

  2015-05-07 20:20                         ` Jérémie Dubois-Lacoste
  
From: Jérémie Dubois-Lacoste @ 2015-05-07 19:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
  Cc: Bitcoin Dev

Any proposal to switch to a new hardcorded value so we have time to
*really* figure out later what's next and all implications, is a road
to a gigantic issue later when we want to switch to that "next".

Sure we would have more time to think about, research all
implications, simulate, discuss, etc. But the ability then to agree
enough on a change to roll it out successfully will be much smaller,
because of the economy being built on top of Bitcoin being much larger
and the technical specifications of Bitcoin being closer to a complete
freeze.

What I'm trying to say is that we should look at long term lasting
solutions even if it takes more effort and time right now and puts the
network into some "troubles" for a while, because they're short term
"troubles". (You define "troubles", depending on which side you stand
at the moment...).

I personally believe in adaptive block size mechanisms, because:

(i) common sense tells me harcoding is never a solution for a system
    whose usage is for many aspects unpredictable
(ii) we can't rely on human consensus to adapt it (seeing the mess
     it is already this time).

It would have the advantage to place this block size issue entirely as
part of the algorithmic contract you agree on when you use Bitcoin,
similar to the difficulty adapation or the block reward.


Jérémie


2015-05-07 21:37 GMT+02:00 Mike Hearn <mike@plan99•net>:
>
>> These statements may even be true, but they're no logical conclusions
>> even if they seem obvious to you.
>> I don't think those claims are strictly true, specially because they
>> involve predictions about what people will do.
>> But if they're true they require some proof or at least some explanation.
>
>
> Thank you for your patience, Jorge.
>
> I have written up an explanation of what I think will happen if we run out
> of capacity:
>
>    https://medium.com/@octskyward/crash-landing-f5cc19908e32
>
> Now I'm going to go eat some dinner :)
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> One dashboard for servers and applications across Physical-Virtual-Cloud
> Widest out-of-the-box monitoring support with 50+ applications
> Performance metrics, stats and reports that give you Actionable Insights
> Deep dive visibility with transaction tracing using APM Insight.
> http://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/290420510;117567292;y
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>



 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2015-05-07 19:31                     ` Alan Reiner

  2015-05-07 19:59                         ` Justus Ranvier
                                           ` (2 more replies)
  2015-05-08  1:51                       ` Joel Joonatan Kaartinen
  2015-05-08  3:41                       ` Peter Todd
  
From: Jeff Garzik @ 2015-05-07 19:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Alan Reiner;  Bitcoin Dev

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2376 bytes --]

On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 3:31 PM, Alan Reiner <etotheipi@gmail•com> wrote:

>  (1) Blocks are essentially nearing "full" now.  And by "full" he means
> that the reliability of the network (from the average user perspective) is
> about to be impacted in a very negative way
>

Er, to be economically precise, "full" just means fees are no longer zero.
Bitcoin behaves as it always has.  It is no longer basically free to dump
spam into the blockchain, as it is today.

In the short term, blocks are bursty, with some on 1 minute intervals, some
with 60 minute intervals.  This does not change with larger blocks.



> (2) Leveraging fee pressure at 1MB to solve the problem is actually really
> a bad idea.  It's really bad while Bitcoin is still growing, and relying on
> fee pressure at 1 MB severely impacts attractiveness and adoption potential
> of Bitcoin (due to high fees and unreliability).  But more importantly, it
> ignores the fact that for a 7 tps is pathetic for a global transaction
> system.  It is a couple orders of magnitude too low for any meaningful
> commercial activity to occur.  If we continue with a cap of 7 tps forever,
> Bitcoin *will* fail.  Or at best, it will fail to be useful for the vast
> majority of the world (which probably leads to failure).  We shouldn't be
> talking about fee pressure until we hit 700 tps, which is probably still
> too low.
>
 [...]

1) Agree that 7 tps is too low

2) Where do you want to go?  Should bitcoin scale up to handle all the
world's coffees?

This is hugely unrealistic.  700 tps is 100MB blocks, 14.4 GB/day -- just
for a single feed.  If you include relaying to multiple nodes, plus serving
500 million SPV clients en grosse, who has the capacity to run such a
node?  By the time we get to fee pressure, in your scenario, our network
node count is tiny and highly centralized.

3) In RE "fee pressure" -- Do you see the moral hazard to a software-run
system?  It is an intentional, human decision to flood the market with
supply, thereby altering the economics, forcing fees to remain low in the
hopes of achieving adoption.  I'm pro-bitcoin and obviously want to see
bitcoin adoption - but I don't want to sacrifice every decentralized
principle and become a central banker in order to get there.

-- 
Jeff Garzik
Bitcoin core developer and open source evangelist
BitPay, Inc.      https://bitpay.com/

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3272 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2015-05-07 16:11             ` Mike Hearn
  2015-05-07 16:47               ` Jorge Timón

  
From: Btc Drak @ 2015-05-07 19:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Mike Hearn;  Bitcoin Dev

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2034 bytes --]

On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 5:11 PM, Mike Hearn <mike@plan99•net> wrote:

> Right now there is this nice warm fuzzy notion that decisions in Bitcoin
>> Core are made by consensus. "Controversial" changes are avoided. I am
>> trying to show you that this is just marketing.
>
>
Consensus is arrived when the people who are most active at the time
(active in contributing to discussions, code review, giving opinions etc.)
agreed to ACK. There are a regular staple of active contributors. Bitcoin
development is clearly a meritocracy. The more people participate and
contribute the more weight their opinions hold.


> Nobody can define what these terms even mean. It would be more accurate to
>> say decisions are vetoed by whoever shows up and complains enough,
>> regardless of technical merit. After all, my own getutxo change was merged
>> after a lot of technical debate (and trolling) ..... then unmerged a day
>> later because "it's a shitstorm".
>
>
I am not sure that is fair, your PR was reverted because someone found a
huge exploit in your PR enough to invalidate all your arguments used to get
it merged in the first place.


> So if Gavin showed up and complained a lot about side chains or whatever,
> what you're saying is, oh that's different. We'd ignore him. But when
> someone else complains about a change they don't like, that's OK.
>
> Heck, I could easily come up with a dozen reasons to object to almost any
> change, if I felt like it. Would I then be considered not a part of the
> consensus because that'd be convenient?
>

I don't think it's as simple as that. Objections for the sake of
objections, or unsound technical objections are going to be seen for what
they are. This is a project with of some of the brightest people in the
world in this field. Sure people can be disruptive but their reputation
stand the test of time.

The consensus system might not be perfect, but it almost feels like you
want to declare a state of emergency and suspend all the normal review
process for this proposed hard fork.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3524 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2015-05-07 19:54                       ` Jeff Garzik

  2015-05-08  1:40                         ` Tom Harding
  2015-05-08 14:59                         ` Alan Reiner
  
From: Justus Ranvier @ 2015-05-07 19:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: bitcoin-development

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1103 bytes --]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 05/07/2015 09:54 PM, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> By the time we get to fee pressure, in your scenario, our network 
> node count is tiny and highly centralized.

Again, this assertion requires proof.

Simply saying things is not the same as them being true.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=1bK6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[-- Attachment #2: 0xEAD9E623.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-keys, Size: 18381 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2015-05-07 19:37                       ` Mike Hearn
  2015-05-07 19:44                         ` Jérémie Dubois-Lacoste

  
From: Jérémie Dubois-Lacoste @ 2015-05-07 20:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
  Cc: Bitcoin Dev

> I have written up an explanation of what I think will happen if we run out
> of capacity:
>
>    https://medium.com/@octskyward/crash-landing-f5cc19908e32
Looks like a solid description of what would happen.

I fail to see how this description wouldn't be applicable also to a
20MB-network in some time in the future, say ~3 years from now, if
Bitcoin keeps taking off.
If you agree that it will be harder in the future to change the block
limit again, and we switch to hardcoded 20MB, then aren't we just
going from an immediate relief to a future larger blockage?



>
> Now I'm going to go eat some dinner :)
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> One dashboard for servers and applications across Physical-Virtual-Cloud
> Widest out-of-the-box monitoring support with 50+ applications
> Performance metrics, stats and reports that give you Actionable Insights
> Deep dive visibility with transaction tracing using APM Insight.
> http://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/290420510;117567292;y
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>



 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2015-05-07 19:34                   ` Mike Hearn

  2015-05-07 23:05                       ` 21E14
  
From: Matt Corallo @ 2015-05-07 21:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Mike Hearn;  Bitcoin Dev



On 05/07/15 19:34, Mike Hearn wrote:
>     The appropriate method of doing any fork, that we seem to have been
>     following for a long time, is to get consensus here and on IRC and on
>     github and *then* go pitch to the general public
> 
> 
> So your concern is just about the ordering and process of things, and
> not about the change itself?

No, I'm very concerned about both.

> I have witnessed many arguments in IRC about block sizes over the years.
> There was another one just a few weeks ago. Pieter left the channel for
> his own sanity. IRC is not a good medium for arriving at decisions on
> things - many people can't afford to sit on IRC all day and
> conversations can be hard to follow. Additionally, they tend to go circular.

I agree, thats why this mailing list was created in the first place
(well, also because bitcointalk is too full of spam, but close enought :))

> That said, I don't know if you can draw a line between the "ins" and
> "outs" like that. The general public is watching, commenting and
> deciding no matter what. Might as well deal with that and debate in a
> format more accessible to all.

Its true, just like its true the general public can opt to run any
version of software they want. That said, the greater software
development community has to update /all/ the software across the entire
ecosystem, and thus provide what amounts to a strong recommendation of
which course to take. Additionally, though there are issues (eg if there
was a push to remove the total coin limit) which are purely political,
and thus which should be up to the greater public to decide, the
blocksize increase is not that. It is intricately tied to Bitcoin's
delicate incentive structure, which many of the development community
are far more farmiliar with than the general Bitcoin public. If there
were a listserv that was comprised primarily of people on
#bitcoin-wizards, I might have suggested a discussion there, first, but
there isnt (as far as I know?).

>     If, instead, there had been an intro on the list as "I think we should
>     do the blocksize increase soon, what do people think?"
> 
> 
> There have been many such discussions over time. On bitcointalk. On
> reddit. On IRC. At developer conferences. Gavin already knew what many
> of the objections would be, which is why he started answering them.
> 
> But alright. Let's say he should have started a thread. Thanks for
> starting it for him.
> 
> Now, can we get this specific list of things we should do before we're
> prepared?

Yes....I'm gonna split the topic since this is already far off course
for that :).

>     A specific credible alternative to what? Committing to blocksize
>     increases tomorrow? Yes, doing more research into this and developing
>     software around supporting larger block sizes so people feel comfortable
>     doing it in six months. 
> 
> 
> Do you have a specific research suggestion? Gavin has run simulations
> across the internet with modified full nodes that use 20mb blocks, using
> real data from the block chain. They seem to suggest it works OK.
> 
> What software do you have in mind?

Let me answer that in a new thread :).



 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2015-05-07 21:29                     ` Matt Corallo

  
From: 21E14 @ 2015-05-07 23:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Matt Corallo;  Bitcoin Dev

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4246 bytes --]

I am more fazed by PR 5288 and PR 5925 not getting merged in, than by this
thread. So, casting my ballot in favor of the block size increase. Clearly,
we're still rehearsing proper discourse, and that ain't gonna get fixed
here and now.

On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 9:29 PM, Matt Corallo <bitcoin-list@bluematt•me>
wrote:

>
>
> On 05/07/15 19:34, Mike Hearn wrote:
> >     The appropriate method of doing any fork, that we seem to have been
> >     following for a long time, is to get consensus here and on IRC and on
> >     github and *then* go pitch to the general public
> >
> >
> > So your concern is just about the ordering and process of things, and
> > not about the change itself?
>
> No, I'm very concerned about both.
>
> > I have witnessed many arguments in IRC about block sizes over the years.
> > There was another one just a few weeks ago. Pieter left the channel for
> > his own sanity. IRC is not a good medium for arriving at decisions on
> > things - many people can't afford to sit on IRC all day and
> > conversations can be hard to follow. Additionally, they tend to go
> circular.
>
> I agree, thats why this mailing list was created in the first place
> (well, also because bitcointalk is too full of spam, but close enought :))
>
> > That said, I don't know if you can draw a line between the "ins" and
> > "outs" like that. The general public is watching, commenting and
> > deciding no matter what. Might as well deal with that and debate in a
> > format more accessible to all.
>
> Its true, just like its true the general public can opt to run any
> version of software they want. That said, the greater software
> development community has to update /all/ the software across the entire
> ecosystem, and thus provide what amounts to a strong recommendation of
> which course to take. Additionally, though there are issues (eg if there
> was a push to remove the total coin limit) which are purely political,
> and thus which should be up to the greater public to decide, the
> blocksize increase is not that. It is intricately tied to Bitcoin's
> delicate incentive structure, which many of the development community
> are far more farmiliar with than the general Bitcoin public. If there
> were a listserv that was comprised primarily of people on
> #bitcoin-wizards, I might have suggested a discussion there, first, but
> there isnt (as far as I know?).
>
> >     If, instead, there had been an intro on the list as "I think we
> should
> >     do the blocksize increase soon, what do people think?"
> >
> >
> > There have been many such discussions over time. On bitcointalk. On
> > reddit. On IRC. At developer conferences. Gavin already knew what many
> > of the objections would be, which is why he started answering them.
> >
> > But alright. Let's say he should have started a thread. Thanks for
> > starting it for him.
> >
> > Now, can we get this specific list of things we should do before we're
> > prepared?
>
> Yes....I'm gonna split the topic since this is already far off course
> for that :).
>
> >     A specific credible alternative to what? Committing to blocksize
> >     increases tomorrow? Yes, doing more research into this and developing
> >     software around supporting larger block sizes so people feel
> comfortable
> >     doing it in six months.
> >
> >
> > Do you have a specific research suggestion? Gavin has run simulations
> > across the internet with modified full nodes that use 20mb blocks, using
> > real data from the block chain. They seem to suggest it works OK.
> >
> > What software do you have in mind?
>
> Let me answer that in a new thread :).
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> One dashboard for servers and applications across Physical-Virtual-Cloud
> Widest out-of-the-box monitoring support with 50+ applications
> Performance metrics, stats and reports that give you Actionable Insights
> Deep dive visibility with transaction tracing using APM Insight.
> http://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/290420510;117567292;y
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 5412 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2015-05-07 19:54                       ` Jeff Garzik
  2015-05-07 19:59                         ` Justus Ranvier

  2015-05-08  2:09                           ` Jeff Garzik
  2015-05-08 14:59                         ` Alan Reiner
  
From: Tom Harding @ 2015-05-08  1:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: bitcoin-development

On 5/7/2015 12:54 PM, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> In the short term, blocks are bursty, with some on 1 minute intervals, 
> some with 60 minute intervals.  This does not change with larger blocks.
>

I'm pretty sure Alan meant that blocks are already filling up after long 
inter-block intervals.


>
> 2) Where do you want to go?  Should bitcoin scale up to handle all the 
> world's coffees?

Alan was very clear.  Right now, he wants to go exactly where Gavin's 
concrete proposal suggests.





 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2015-05-07 19:31                     ` Alan Reiner
  2015-05-07 19:54                       ` Jeff Garzik

  2015-05-08  3:41                       ` Peter Todd
  
From: Joel Joonatan Kaartinen @ 2015-05-08  1:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Bitcoin Development

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5580 bytes --]

Having observed the customer support nightmare it tends to cause for a
small exchange service when 100% full blocks happen, I've been thinking
that the limit really should be dynamic and respond to demand and the
amount of fees offered. It just doesn't feel right when it takes ages to
burn through the backlog when 100% full is hit for a while. So, while
pondering this, I got an idea that I think has a chance of working that I
can't remember seeing suggested anywhere.

How about basing the maximum valid size for a block on the total bitcoin
days destroyed in that block? That should still stop transaction spam but
naturally expand the block size when there's a backlog of real
transactions. It'd also provide for an indirect mechanism for increasing
the maximum block size based on fees if there's a lot of fees but little
bitcoin days destroyed. In such a situation there'd be incentive to pay
someone to spend an older txout to expand the maximum. I realize this is a
rather half baked idea, but it seems worth considering.

- Joel

On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 10:31 PM, Alan Reiner <etotheipi@gmail•com> wrote:

>  This *is* urgent and needs to be handled right now, and I believe Gavin
> has the best approach to this.  I have heard Gavin's talks on increasing
> the block size, and the two most persuasive points to me were:
>
> (1) Blocks are essentially nearing "full" now.  And by "full" he means
> that the reliability of the network (from the average user perspective) is
> about to be impacted in a very negative way (I believe it was due to the
> inconsistent time between blocks).  I think Gavin said that his simulations
> showed 400 kB - 600 kB worth of transactions per 10 min (approx 3-4 tps) is
> where things start to behave poorly for certain classes of transactions.
> In other words, we're very close to the effective limit in terms of
> maintaining the current "standard of living", and with a year needed to
> raise the block time this actually is urgent.
>
> (2) Leveraging fee pressure at 1MB to solve the problem is actually really
> a bad idea.  It's really bad while Bitcoin is still growing, and relying on
> fee pressure at 1 MB severely impacts attractiveness and adoption potential
> of Bitcoin (due to high fees and unreliability).  But more importantly, it
> ignores the fact that for a 7 tps is pathetic for a global transaction
> system.  It is a couple orders of magnitude too low for any meaningful
> commercial activity to occur.  If we continue with a cap of 7 tps forever,
> Bitcoin *will* fail.  Or at best, it will fail to be useful for the vast
> majority of the world (which probably leads to failure).  We shouldn't be
> talking about fee pressure until we hit 700 tps, which is probably still
> too low.
>
> You can argue that side chains and payment channels could alleviate this.
> But how far off are they?  We're going to hit effective 1MB limits long
> before we can leverage those in a meaningful way.  Even if everyone used
> them, getting a billion people onto the system just can't happen even at 1
> transaction per year per person to get into a payment channel or move money
> between side chains.
>
> We get asked all the time by corporate clients about scalability.  A limit
> of 7 tps makes them uncomfortable that they are going to invest all this
> time into a system that has no chance of handling the economic activity
> that they expect it handle.  We always assure them that 7 tps is not the
> final answer.
>
> Satoshi didn't believe 1 MB blocks were the correct answer.  I personally
> think this is critical to Bitcoin's long term future.   And I'm not sure
> what else Gavin could've done to push this along in a meaninful way.
>
> -Alan
>
>
>
> On 05/07/2015 02:06 PM, Mike Hearn wrote:
>
>     I think you are rubbing against your own presupposition that people
>> must find and alternative right now. Quite a lot here do not believe there
>> is any urgency, nor that there is an immanent problem that has to be solved
>> before the sky falls in.
>>
>
>  I have explained why I believe there is some urgency, whereby "some
> urgency" I mean, assuming it takes months to implement, merge, test,
> release and for people to upgrade.
>
>  But if it makes you happy, imagine that this discussion happens all over
> again next year and I ask the same question.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> One dashboard for servers and applications across Physical-Virtual-Cloud
> Widest out-of-the-box monitoring support with 50+ applications
> Performance metrics, stats and reports that give you Actionable Insights
> Deep dive visibility with transaction tracing using APM Insight.http://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/290420510;117567292;y
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing listBitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.nethttps://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> One dashboard for servers and applications across Physical-Virtual-Cloud
> Widest out-of-the-box monitoring support with 50+ applications
> Performance metrics, stats and reports that give you Actionable Insights
> Deep dive visibility with transaction tracing using APM Insight.
> http://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/290420510;117567292;y
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 8070 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2015-05-08  1:40                         ` Tom Harding

  2015-05-08  5:13                             ` Tom Harding
  
From: Jeff Garzik @ 2015-05-08  2:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Tom Harding;  Bitcoin Dev

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1544 bytes --]

On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 9:40 PM, Tom Harding <tomh@thinlink•com> wrote:

> On 5/7/2015 12:54 PM, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> > 2) Where do you want to go?  Should bitcoin scale up to handle all the
> > world's coffees?
>
> Alan was very clear.  Right now, he wants to go exactly where Gavin's
> concrete proposal suggests.
>

G proposed 20MB blocks, AFAIK - 140 tps
A proposed 100MB blocks - 700 tps
For ref,
Paypal is around 115 tps
VISA is around 2000 tps (perhaps 4000 tps peak)

I ask again:  where do we want to go?   This is the existential question
behind block size.

Are we trying to build a system that can handle Paypal volumes?  VISA
volumes?

It's not a snarky or sarcastic question:  Are we building a system to
handle all the world's coffees?  Is bitcoin's main chain and network -
Layer 1 - going to receive direct connections from 500m mobile phones,
broadcasting transactions?

We must answer these questions to inform the change being discussed today,
in order to decide what makes the most sense as a new limit.  Any
responsible project of this magnitude must have a better story than "zomg
1MB, therefore I picked 20MB out of a hat"  Must be able to answer /why/
the new limit was picked.

As G notes, changing the block size is simply kicking the can down the
road: http://gavinandresen.ninja/it-must-be-done-but-is-not-a-panacea
Necessarily one must ask, today, what happens when we get to the end of
that newly paved road.

-- 
Jeff Garzik
Bitcoin core developer and open source evangelist
BitPay, Inc.      https://bitpay.com/

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2557 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2015-05-07 19:31                     ` Alan Reiner
  2015-05-07 19:54                       ` Jeff Garzik
  2015-05-08  1:51                       ` Joel Joonatan Kaartinen

  
From: Peter Todd @ 2015-05-08  3:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Alan Reiner;  bitcoin-development

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 570 bytes --]

On Thu, May 07, 2015 at 03:31:46PM -0400, Alan Reiner wrote:
> We get asked all the time by corporate clients about scalability.  A
> limit of 7 tps makes them uncomfortable that they are going to invest
> all this time into a system that has no chance of handling the economic
> activity that they expect it handle.  We always assure them that 7 tps
> is not the final answer. 

Your corporate clients, *why* do they want to use Bitcoin and what for
exactly?

-- 
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
0000000000000000054c9d9ae1099ef8bc0bc9b76fef5e03f7edaff66fd817d8

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 650 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2015-05-07 13:40       ` Jorge Timón

  
From: Tom Harding @ 2015-05-08  4:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: bitcoin-development

On 5/7/2015 6:40 AM, Jorge Timón wrote:
>> Known: There's a major problem looming for miners at the next block reward
>> halving. Many are already in a bad place and without meaningful fees then
>> sans a 2x increase in the USD:BTC ratio then many will simply have to leave
>> the network, increasing centralisation risks. There seems to be a fairly
>> pervasive assumption that the 300-ish MW of power that they currently use is
>> going to pay for itself (ignoring capital and other operating costs).
> I take this as an argument for increasing fee competition and thus,
> against increasing the block size.
>

That doesn't follow.  Supposing average fees per transaction decrease
with block size, total fees / block reach an optimum somewhere.  While
the optimum might be at infinity, it's certainly not at zero, and it's
not at all obvious that the optimum is at a block size lower than 1MB.





 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2015-05-08  2:09                           ` Jeff Garzik

  2015-05-08  9:43                               ` Mike Hearn
  2015-05-08 15:23                               ` Alan Reiner
  
From: Tom Harding @ 2015-05-08  5:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Jeff Garzik;  Bitcoin Dev

On 5/7/2015 7:09 PM, Jeff Garzik wrote:
>
> G proposed 20MB blocks, AFAIK - 140 tps
> A proposed 100MB blocks - 700 tps
> For ref,
> Paypal is around 115 tps
> VISA is around 2000 tps (perhaps 4000 tps peak)
>
> I ask again:  where do we want to go?   This is the existential
> question behind block size.
>
> Are we trying to build a system that can handle Paypal volumes?  VISA
> volumes?
>
> It's not a snarky or sarcastic question:  Are we building a system to
> handle all the world's coffees?  Is bitcoin's main chain and network -
> Layer 1 - going to receive direct connections from 500m mobile phones,
> broadcasting transactions?
>
> We must answer these questions to inform the change being discussed
> today, in order to decide what makes the most sense as a new limit. 
> Any responsible project of this magnitude must have a better story
> than "zomg 1MB, therefore I picked 20MB out of a hat"  Must be able to
> answer /why/ the new limit was picked.
>
> As G notes, changing the block size is simply kicking the can down the
> road:
> http://gavinandresen.ninja/it-must-be-done-but-is-not-a-panacea  
> Necessarily one must ask, today, what happens when we get to the end
> of that newly paved road.
>
>

Accepting that outcomes are less knowable further into the future is not
the same as failing to consider the future at all.  A responsible
project can't have a movie-plot roadmap.  It needs to give weight to
multiple possible future outcomes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision_tree

One way or another, the challenge is to decide what to do next.  Beyond
that, it's future decisions all the way down. 

Alan argues that 7 tps is a couple orders of magnitude too low for any
meaningful commercial activity to occur, and too low to be the final
solution, even with higher layers.  I agree.  I also agree with you,
that we don't really know how to accomplish 700tps right now.

What we do know is if we want to bump the limit in the short term, we
ought to start now, and until there's a better alternative root to the
decision tree, it just might be time to get moving.






 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2015-05-08  5:13                             ` Tom Harding

  2015-05-08 15:23                               ` Alan Reiner
  
From: Mike Hearn @ 2015-05-08  9:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Tom Harding;  Bitcoin Dev

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 460 bytes --]

>
> Alan argues that 7 tps is a couple orders of magnitude too low


By the way, just to clear this up - the real limit at the moment is more
like 3 tps, not 7.

The 7 transactions/second figure comes from calculations I did years ago,
in 2011. I did them a few months before the "sendmany" command was
released, so back then almost all transactions were small. After sendmany
and as people developed custom wallets, etc, the average transaction size
went up.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 714 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2015-05-07  1:49 ` Peter Todd
  2015-05-07  3:03   ` Justus Ranvier

  2015-05-08 20:17     ` Aaron Voisine
  
From: Thomas Zander @ 2015-05-08 11:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: bitcoin-development

On Wednesday 6. May 2015 21.49.52 Peter Todd wrote:
> I'm not sure if you've seen this, but a good paper on this topic was
> published recently: "The Economics of Bitcoin Transaction Fees"


The obvious flaw in this paper is that it talks about a block size in todays 
(trivial) data-flow economy and compares it with the zero-reward situation 
decades from now.

Its comparing two things that will never exist at the same time (unless 
Bitcoin fails).
-- 
Thomas Zander



 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2015-05-07 19:54                       ` Jeff Garzik
  2015-05-07 19:59                         ` Justus Ranvier
  2015-05-08  1:40                         ` Tom Harding

  2015-05-08 15:49                           ` Jeff Garzik
  2015-05-08 17:17                           ` Andrew
  
From: Alan Reiner @ 2015-05-08 14:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Jeff Garzik;  Bitcoin Dev

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3112 bytes --]


This isn't about "everyone's coffee".  This is about an absolute minimum
amount of participation by people who wish to use the network.   If our
goal is really for bitcoin to really be a global, open transaction
network that makes money fluid, then 7tps is already a failure.  If even
5% of the world (350M people) was using the network for 1 tx per month
(perhaps to open payment channels, or shift money between side chains),
we'll be above 100 tps.  And that doesn't include all the
non-individuals (organizations) that want to use it.

The goals of "a global transaction network" and "everyone must be able
to run a full node with their $200 dell laptop" are not compatible.  We
need to accept that a global transaction system cannot be
fully/constantly audited by everyone and their mother.  The important
feature of the network is that it is open and anyone *can* get the
history and verify it.  But not everyone is required to.   Trying to
promote a system where the history can be forever handled by a low-end
PC is already falling out of reach, even with our miniscule 7 tps. 
Clinging to that goal needlessly limits the capability for the network
to scale to be a useful global payments system



On 05/07/2015 03:54 PM, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 3:31 PM, Alan Reiner <etotheipi@gmail•com
> <mailto:etotheipi@gmail•com>> wrote:
>  
>
>     (2) Leveraging fee pressure at 1MB to solve the problem is
>     actually really a bad idea.  It's really bad while Bitcoin is
>     still growing, and relying on fee pressure at 1 MB severely
>     impacts attractiveness and adoption potential of Bitcoin (due to
>     high fees and unreliability).  But more importantly, it ignores
>     the fact that for a 7 tps is pathetic for a global transaction
>     system.  It is a couple orders of magnitude too low for any
>     meaningful commercial activity to occur.  If we continue with a
>     cap of 7 tps forever, Bitcoin *will* fail.  Or at best, it will
>     fail to be useful for the vast majority of the world (which
>     probably leads to failure).  We shouldn't be talking about fee
>     pressure until we hit 700 tps, which is probably still too low. 
>
>  [...]
>
> 1) Agree that 7 tps is too low
>
> 2) Where do you want to go?  Should bitcoin scale up to handle all the
> world's coffees? 
>
> This is hugely unrealistic.  700 tps is 100MB blocks, 14.4 GB/day --
> just for a single feed.  If you include relaying to multiple nodes,
> plus serving 500 million SPV clients en grosse, who has the capacity
> to run such a node?  By the time we get to fee pressure, in your
> scenario, our network node count is tiny and highly centralized.
>
> 3) In RE "fee pressure" -- Do you see the moral hazard to a
> software-run system?  It is an intentional, human decision to flood
> the market with supply, thereby altering the economics, forcing fees
> to remain low in the hopes of achieving adoption.  I'm pro-bitcoin and
> obviously want to see bitcoin adoption - but I don't want to sacrifice
> every decentralized principle and become a central banker in order to
> get there.
>


[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 4713 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2015-05-08  5:13                             ` Tom Harding
  2015-05-08  9:43                               ` Mike Hearn

  
From: Alan Reiner @ 2015-05-08 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: bitcoin-development

On 05/08/2015 01:13 AM, Tom Harding wrote:
> On 5/7/2015 7:09 PM, Jeff Garzik wrote:
>> G proposed 20MB blocks, AFAIK - 140 tps
>> A proposed 100MB blocks - 700 tps
>> For ref,
>> Paypal is around 115 tps
>> VISA is around 2000 tps (perhaps 4000 tps peak)
>>

For reference, I'm not "proposing" 100 MB blocks right now.  I was
simply suggesting that if Bitcoin is to *ultimately* achieve the goal of
being a globally useful payment rails, 7tps is embarrassingly small. 
Even with off-chain transactions.  It should be a no-brainer that block
size has to go up.

My goal was to bring some long-term perspective into the discussion.  I
don't know if 100 MB blocks will *actually* be necessary for Bitcoin in
20 years, but it's feasible that it will be.  It's an open, global
payments system.  Therefore, we shouldn't be arguing about whether 1 MB
blocks is sufficient--it's very clearly not.  And admitting this as a
valid point is also an admission that not everyone in the world will be
able to run a full node in 20 years.

I don't think there's a solution that can accommodate all future
scenarios, nor that we can even find a solution right now that avoids
more hard forks in the future.   But the goal of "everyone should be
able to download and verify the world's global transactions on a
smartphone" is a non-starter and should not drive decisions. 



 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2015-05-08 14:59                         ` Alan Reiner

  2015-05-13 10:37                             ` Oliver Egginger
  2015-05-08 17:17                           ` Andrew
  
From: Jeff Garzik @ 2015-05-08 15:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Alan Reiner;  Bitcoin Dev

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2153 bytes --]

On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 10:59 AM, Alan Reiner <etotheipi@gmail•com> wrote:

>
> This isn't about "everyone's coffee".  This is about an absolute minimum
> amount of participation by people who wish to use the network.   If our
> goal is really for bitcoin to really be a global, open transaction network
> that makes money fluid, then 7tps is already a failure.  If even 5% of the
> world (350M people) was using the network for 1 tx per month (perhaps to
> open payment channels, or shift money between side chains), we'll be above
> 100 tps.  And that doesn't include all the non-individuals (organizations)
> that want to use it.
>
> The goals of "a global transaction network" and "everyone must be able to
> run a full node with their $200 dell laptop" are not compatible.  We need
> to accept that a global transaction system cannot be fully/constantly
> audited by everyone and their mother.  The important feature of the network
> is that it is open and anyone *can* get the history and verify it.  But not
> everyone is required to.   Trying to promote a system where the history can
> be forever handled by a low-end PC is already falling out of reach, even
> with our miniscule 7 tps.  Clinging to that goal needlessly limits the
> capability for the network to scale to be a useful global payments system
>
>
To repeat, the very first point in my email reply was: "Agree that 7 tps is
too low"  Never was it said that bit

Therefore a reply arguing against the low end is nonsense, and the relevant
question remains on the table.

How high do you want to go - and can Layer 1 bitcoin really scale to get
there?

It is highly disappointing to see people endorse "moar bitcoin volume!"
with zero thinking behind that besides "adoption!"  Need to actually
project what bitcoin looks like at the desired levels, what network
resources are required to get to those levels -- including traffic to serve
those SPV clients via P2P -- and then work backwards from that to see who
can support it, and then work backwards to discern a maximum tps.

-- 
Jeff Garzik
Bitcoin core developer and open source evangelist
BitPay, Inc.      https://bitpay.com/

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2890 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2015-05-08 14:59                         ` Alan Reiner
  2015-05-08 15:49                           ` Jeff Garzik

  2015-05-08 17:51                             ` Alan Reiner
  
From: Andrew @ 2015-05-08 17:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Alan Reiner;  Bitcoin Dev

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5282 bytes --]

On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 2:59 PM, Alan Reiner <etotheipi@gmail•com> wrote:

>
> This isn't about "everyone's coffee".  This is about an absolute minimum
> amount of participation by people who wish to use the network.   If our
> goal is really for bitcoin to really be a global, open transaction network
> that makes money fluid, then 7tps is already a failure.  If even 5% of the
> world (350M people) was using the network for 1 tx per month (perhaps to
> open payment channels, or shift money between side chains), we'll be above
> 100 tps.  And that doesn't include all the non-individuals (organizations)
> that want to use it.
>

> The goals of "a global transaction network" and "everyone must be able to
> run a full node with their $200 dell laptop" are not compatible.  We need
> to accept that a global transaction system cannot be fully/constantly
> audited by everyone and their mother.  The important feature of the network
> is that it is open and anyone *can* get the history and verify it.  But not
> everyone is required to.   Trying to promote a system wher000e the history
> can be forever handled by a low-end PC is already falling out of reach,
> even with our miniscule 7 tps.  Clinging to that goal needlessly limits the
> capability for the network to scale to be a useful global payments system
>

These are good points and got me thinking (but I think you're wrong). If we
really want each of the 10 billion people soon using bitcoin once per
month, that will require 500MB blocks. That's about 2 TB per month. And if
you relay it to 4 peers, it's 10 TB per month. Which I suppose is doable
for a home desktop, so you can just run a pruned full node with all
transactions from the past month. But how do you sync all those
transactions if you've never done this before or it's been a while since
you did? I think it currently takes at least 3 hours to fully sync 30 GB of
transactions. So 2 TB will take 8 days, then you take a bit more time to
sync the days that passed while you were syncing. So that's doable, but at
a certain point, like 10 TB per month (still only 5 transactions per month
per person), you will need 41 days to sync that month, so you will never
catch up. So I think in order to keep the very important property of anyone
being able to start clean and verify the thing, then we need to think of
bitcoin as a system that does transactions for a large number of users at
once in one transaction, and not a system where each person will make a
~monthly transaction on. We need to therefore rely on sidechains,
treechains, lightning channels, etc...

I'm not a bitcoin wizard and this is just my second post on this mailing
list, so I may be missing something. So please someone, correct me if I'm
wrong.

>
>
>
> On 05/07/2015 03:54 PM, Jeff Garzik wrote:
>
>  On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 3:31 PM, Alan Reiner <etotheipi@gmail•com> wrote:
>
>
>>  (2) Leveraging fee pressure at 1MB to solve the problem is actually
>> really a bad idea.  It's really bad while Bitcoin is still growing, and
>> relying on fee pressure at 1 MB severely impacts attractiveness and
>> adoption potential of Bitcoin (due to high fees and unreliability).  But
>> more importantly, it ignores the fact that for a 7 tps is pathetic for a
>> global transaction system.  It is a couple orders of magnitude too low for
>> any meaningful commercial activity to occur.  If we continue with a cap of
>> 7 tps forever, Bitcoin *will* fail.  Or at best, it will fail to be
>> useful for the vast majority of the world (which probably leads to
>> failure).  We shouldn't be talking about fee pressure until we hit 700 tps,
>> which is probably still too low.
>>
>  [...]
>
>  1) Agree that 7 tps is too low
>
>  2) Where do you want to go?  Should bitcoin scale up to handle all the
> world's coffees?
>
>  This is hugely unrealistic.  700 tps is 100MB blocks, 14.4 GB/day --
> just for a single feed.  If you include relaying to multiple nodes, plus
> serving 500 million SPV clients en grosse, who has the capacity to run such
> a node?  By the time we get to fee pressure, in your scenario, our network
> node count is tiny and highly centralized.
>
>  3) In RE "fee pressure" -- Do you see the moral hazard to a software-run
> system?  It is an intentional, human decision to flood the market with
> supply, thereby altering the economics, forcing fees to remain low in the
> hopes of achieving adoption.  I'm pro-bitcoin and obviously want to see
> bitcoin adoption - but I don't want to sacrifice every decentralized
> principle and become a central banker in order to get there.
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> One dashboard for servers and applications across Physical-Virtual-Cloud
> Widest out-of-the-box monitoring support with 50+ applications
> Performance metrics, stats and reports that give you Actionable Insights
> Deep dive visibility with transaction tracing using APM Insight.
> http://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/290420510;117567292;y
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>
>


-- 
PGP: B6AC 822C 451D 6304 6A28  49E9 7DB7 011C D53B 5647

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 7939 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2015-05-08 17:17                           ` Andrew

       [not found]                               ` <CADZB0_bK+YsK8sN-di2pynvjsq5VjSvnEu0-cCGhPqFunyVm7Q@mail.gmail.com>
  
From: Alan Reiner @ 2015-05-08 17:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Andrew;  Bitcoin Dev

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5917 bytes --]

Actually I believe that side chains and off-main-chain transactions will be
a critical part for the overall scalability of the network.  I was actually
trying to make the point that (insert some huge block size here) will be
needed to even accommodate the reduced traffic.

I believe that it is definitely over 20MB. If it was determined to be 100
MB ten years from now, that wouldn't surprise me.

Sent from my overpriced smartphone
On May 8, 2015 1:17 PM, "Andrew" <onelineproof@gmail•com> wrote:

>
>
> On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 2:59 PM, Alan Reiner <etotheipi@gmail•com> wrote:
>
>>
>> This isn't about "everyone's coffee".  This is about an absolute minimum
>> amount of participation by people who wish to use the network.   If our
>> goal is really for bitcoin to really be a global, open transaction network
>> that makes money fluid, then 7tps is already a failure.  If even 5% of the
>> world (350M people) was using the network for 1 tx per month (perhaps to
>> open payment channels, or shift money between side chains), we'll be above
>> 100 tps.  And that doesn't include all the non-individuals (organizations)
>> that want to use it.
>>
>
>> The goals of "a global transaction network" and "everyone must be able to
>> run a full node with their $200 dell laptop" are not compatible.  We need
>> to accept that a global transaction system cannot be fully/constantly
>> audited by everyone and their mother.  The important feature of the network
>> is that it is open and anyone *can* get the history and verify it.  But not
>> everyone is required to.   Trying to promote a system wher000e the history
>> can be forever handled by a low-end PC is already falling out of reach,
>> even with our miniscule 7 tps.  Clinging to that goal needlessly limits the
>> capability for the network to scale to be a useful global payments system
>>
>
> These are good points and got me thinking (but I think you're wrong). If
> we really want each of the 10 billion people soon using bitcoin once per
> month, that will require 500MB blocks. That's about 2 TB per month. And if
> you relay it to 4 peers, it's 10 TB per month. Which I suppose is doable
> for a home desktop, so you can just run a pruned full node with all
> transactions from the past month. But how do you sync all those
> transactions if you've never done this before or it's been a while since
> you did? I think it currently takes at least 3 hours to fully sync 30 GB of
> transactions. So 2 TB will take 8 days, then you take a bit more time to
> sync the days that passed while you were syncing. So that's doable, but at
> a certain point, like 10 TB per month (still only 5 transactions per month
> per person), you will need 41 days to sync that month, so you will never
> catch up. So I think in order to keep the very important property of anyone
> being able to start clean and verify the thing, then we need to think of
> bitcoin as a system that does transactions for a large number of users at
> once in one transaction, and not a system where each person will make a
> ~monthly transaction on. We need to therefore rely on sidechains,
> treechains, lightning channels, etc...
>
> I'm not a bitcoin wizard and this is just my second post on this mailing
> list, so I may be missing something. So please someone, correct me if I'm
> wrong.
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 05/07/2015 03:54 PM, Jeff Garzik wrote:
>>
>>  On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 3:31 PM, Alan Reiner <etotheipi@gmail•com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>  (2) Leveraging fee pressure at 1MB to solve the problem is actually
>>> really a bad idea.  It's really bad while Bitcoin is still growing, and
>>> relying on fee pressure at 1 MB severely impacts attractiveness and
>>> adoption potential of Bitcoin (due to high fees and unreliability).  But
>>> more importantly, it ignores the fact that for a 7 tps is pathetic for a
>>> global transaction system.  It is a couple orders of magnitude too low for
>>> any meaningful commercial activity to occur.  If we continue with a cap of
>>> 7 tps forever, Bitcoin *will* fail.  Or at best, it will fail to be
>>> useful for the vast majority of the world (which probably leads to
>>> failure).  We shouldn't be talking about fee pressure until we hit 700 tps,
>>> which is probably still too low.
>>>
>>  [...]
>>
>>  1) Agree that 7 tps is too low
>>
>>  2) Where do you want to go?  Should bitcoin scale up to handle all the
>> world's coffees?
>>
>>  This is hugely unrealistic.  700 tps is 100MB blocks, 14.4 GB/day --
>> just for a single feed.  If you include relaying to multiple nodes, plus
>> serving 500 million SPV clients en grosse, who has the capacity to run such
>> a node?  By the time we get to fee pressure, in your scenario, our network
>> node count is tiny and highly centralized.
>>
>>  3) In RE "fee pressure" -- Do you see the moral hazard to a software-run
>> system?  It is an intentional, human decision to flood the market with
>> supply, thereby altering the economics, forcing fees to remain low in the
>> hopes of achieving adoption.  I'm pro-bitcoin and obviously want to see
>> bitcoin adoption - but I don't want to sacrifice every decentralized
>> principle and become a central banker in order to get there.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> One dashboard for servers and applications across Physical-Virtual-Cloud
>> Widest out-of-the-box monitoring support with 50+ applications
>> Performance metrics, stats and reports that give you Actionable Insights
>> Deep dive visibility with transaction tracing using APM Insight.
>> http://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/290420510;117567292;y
>> _______________________________________________
>> Bitcoin-development mailing list
>> Bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> PGP: B6AC 822C 451D 6304 6A28  49E9 7DB7 011C D53B 5647
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 8711 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2015-05-08 11:02   ` Thomas Zander

  
From: Aaron Voisine @ 2015-05-08 20:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
  Cc: Bitcoin Development

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1386 bytes --]

As the author of a popular SPV wallet, I wanted to weigh in, in support of
the Gavin's 20Mb block proposal.

The best argument I've heard against raising the limit is that we need fee
pressure.  I agree that fee pressure is the right way to economize on
scarce resources. Placing hard limits on block size however is an
incredibly disruptive way to go about this, and will severely negatively
impact users' experience.

When users pay too low a fee, they should:

1) See immediate failure as they do now with fees that fail to propagate.

2) If the fee lower than it should be but not terminal, they should see
degraded performance, long delays in confirmation, but eventual success.
This will encourage them to pay higher fees in future.

The worst of all worlds would be to have transactions propagate, hang in
limbo for days, and then fail. This is the most important scenario to
avoid. Increasing the 1Mb block size limit I think is the simplest way to
avoid this least desirable scenario for the immediate future.

We can play around with improved transaction selection for blocks and
encourage miners to adopt it to discourage low fees and create fee
pressure. These could involve hybrid priority/fee selection so low fee
transactions see degraded performance instead of failure. This would be the
conservative low risk approach.

Aaron Voisine
co-founder and CEO
breadwallet.com

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1978 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2015-05-08 20:40 ` Mark Friedenbach
  
From: Raystonn . @ 2015-05-08 20:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Aaron Voisine;  Bitcoin Development

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/html, Size: 2601 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2015-05-08 20:38 Raystonn .

  
From: Mark Friedenbach @ 2015-05-08 20:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Raystonn .;  Bitcoin Development

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3016 bytes --]

Transactions don't expire. But if the wallet is online, it can periodically
choose to release an already created transaction with a higher fee. This
requires replace-by-fee to be sufficiently deployed, however.

On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 1:38 PM, Raystonn . <raystonn@hotmail•com> wrote:

> I have a proposal for wallets such as yours.  How about creating all
> transactions with an expiration time starting with a low fee, then
> replacing with new transactions that have a higher fee as time passes.
> Users can pick the fee curve they desire based on the transaction priority
> they want to advertise to the network.  Users set the priority in the
> wallet, and the wallet software translates it to a specific fee curve used
> in the series of expiring transactions.  In this manner, transactions are
> never left hanging for days, and probably not even for hours.
>
> -Raystonn
>  On 8 May 2015 1:17 pm, Aaron Voisine <voisine@gmail•com> wrote:
>
> As the author of a popular SPV wallet, I wanted to weigh in, in support of
> the Gavin's 20Mb block proposal.
>
> The best argument I've heard against raising the limit is that we need fee
> pressure.  I agree that fee pressure is the right way to economize on
> scarce resources. Placing hard limits on block size however is an
> incredibly disruptive way to go about this, and will severely negatively
> impact users' experience.
>
> When users pay too low a fee, they should:
>
> 1) See immediate failure as they do now with fees that fail to propagate.
>
> 2) If the fee lower than it should be but not terminal, they should see
> degraded performance, long delays in confirmation, but eventual success.
> This will encourage them to pay higher fees in future.
>
> The worst of all worlds would be to have transactions propagate, hang in
> limbo for days, and then fail. This is the most important scenario to
> avoid. Increasing the 1Mb block size limit I think is the simplest way to
> avoid this least desirable scenario for the immediate future.
>
> We can play around with improved transaction selection for blocks and
> encourage miners to adopt it to discourage low fees and create fee
> pressure. These could involve hybrid priority/fee selection so low fee
> transactions see degraded performance instead of failure. This would be the
> conservative low risk approach.
>
> Aaron Voisine
> co-founder and CEO
> breadwallet.com
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> One dashboard for servers and applications across Physical-Virtual-Cloud
> Widest out-of-the-box monitoring support with 50+ applications
> Performance metrics, stats and reports that give you Actionable Insights
> Deep dive visibility with transaction tracing using APM Insight.
> http://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/290420510;117567292;y
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 4124 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2015-05-08 20:55 ` Mark Friedenbach
  
From: Raystonn @ 2015-05-08 20:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Mark Friedenbach;  Bitcoin Development

Replace by fee is what I was referencing.  End-users interpret the old transaction as expired.  Hence the nomenclature.  An alternative is a new feature that operates in the reverse of time lock, expiring a transaction after a specific time.  But time is a bit unreliable in the blockchain

-Raystonn


On 8 May 2015 1:41 pm, Mark Friedenbach <mark@friedenbach•org> wrote:
>
> Transactions don't expire. But if the wallet is online, it can periodically choose to release an already created transaction with a higher fee. This requires replace-by-fee to be sufficiently deployed, however.
>
> On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 1:38 PM, Raystonn . <raystonn@hotmail•com> wrote:
>>
>> I have a proposal for wallets such as yours.  How about creating all transactions with an expiration time starting with a low fee, then replacing with new transactions that have a higher fee as time passes.  Users can pick the fee curve they desire based on the transaction priority they want to advertise to the network.  Users set the priority in the wallet, and the wallet software translates it to a specific fee curve used in the series of expiring transactions.  In this manner, transactions are never left hanging for days, and probably not even for hours.
>>
>> -Raystonn
>>
>> On 8 May 2015 1:17 pm, Aaron Voisine <voisine@gmail•com> wrote:
>>>
>>> As the author of a popular SPV wallet, I wanted to weigh in, in support of the Gavin's 20Mb block proposal.
>>>
>>> The best argument I've heard against raising the limit is that we need fee pressure.  I agree that fee pressure is the right way to economize on scarce resources. Placing hard limits on block size however is an incredibly disruptive way to go about this, and will severely negatively impact users' experience.
>>>
>>> When users pay too low a fee, they should:
>>>
>>> 1) See immediate failure as they do now with fees that fail to propagate.
>>>
>>> 2) If the fee lower than it should be but not terminal, they should see degraded performance, long delays in confirmation, but eventual success. This will encourage them to pay higher fees in future.
>>>
>>> The worst of all worlds would be to have transactions propagate, hang in limbo for days, and then fail. This is the most important scenario to avoid. Increasing the 1Mb block size limit I think is the simplest way to avoid this least desirable scenario for the immediate future.
>>>
>>> We can play around with improved transaction selection for blocks and encourage miners to adopt it to discourage low fees and create fee pressure. These could involve hybrid priority/fee selection so low fee transactions see degraded performance instead of failure. This would be the conservative low risk approach.
>>>
>>> Aaron Voisine
>>> co-founder and CEO
>>> breadwallet.com
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> One dashboard for servers and applications across Physical-Virtual-Cloud
>> Widest out-of-the-box monitoring support with 50+ applications
>> Performance metrics, stats and reports that give you Actionable Insights
>> Deep dive visibility with transaction tracing using APM Insight.
>> http://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/290420510;117567292;y
>> _______________________________________________
>> Bitcoin-development mailing list
>> Bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>>
>

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2015-05-08 20:51 [Bitcoin-development] Block Size Increase Raystonn

  
From: Mark Friedenbach @ 2015-05-08 20:55 UTC ( / )
  To: Raystonn;  Bitcoin Development



The problems with that are larger than time being unreliable. It is no
longer reorg-safe as transactions can expire in the course of a reorg and
any transaction built on the now expired transaction is invalidated.

On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 1:51 PM, Raystonn <raystonn@hotmail•com> wrote:

> Replace by fee is what I was referencing.  End-users interpret the old
> transaction as expired.  Hence the nomenclature.  An alternative is a new
> feature that operates in the reverse of time lock, expiring a transaction
> after a specific time.  But time is a bit unreliable in the blockchain
>
From: Raystonn @ 2015-05-08 21:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Mark Friedenbach;  Bitcoin Development

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/html, Size: 1672 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
[not found]                               ` <CADZB0_bK+YsK8sN-di2pynvjsq5VjSvnEu0-cCGhPqFunyVm7Q@mail.gmail.com>

  2015-05-09 12:53                                   ` Justus Ranvier
  
From: Andrew @ 2015-05-09 12:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Angel Leon;  Bitcoin Dev

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 9716 bytes --]

The nice thing about 1 MB is that you can store ALL bitcoin transactions
relevant to your lifetime (~100 years) on one 5 TB hard drive
(1*6*24*365*100=5256000). Any regular person can run a full node and store
this 5 TB hard drive easily at their home. With 10 MB blocks you need a 50
TB drive just for your bitcoin transactions! This is not doable for most
regular people due to space and monetary constraints. Being able to review
all transactions relevant to your lifetime is one of the key important
properties of Bitcoin. How else can people audit the financial transactions
of companies and governments that are using the Bitcoin blockchain? How
else can we achieve this level of transparency that is essential to keeping
corrupt governments/companies in check? How else can we keep track of our
own personal transactions without relying on others to keep track of them
for us? As time passes, storage technology may increase, but so may human
life expectancy. So yes, in this sense, 1 MB just may be the magic number.

Assuming that we have a perfectly functional off-chain transaction system,
what do we actually gain by going from 1 MB to 1000 MB (my approximate
limit for regular users having enough processing power)? If there is no
clear and substantial gain, then it is foolish to venture into this
territory, i.e. KEEP IT AT 1 MB! For example Angel said he wants to see
computers transacting with computers at super speeds. Why do you need to do
this on the main chain? You will lose all the transparency of the current
system, an essential feature.


On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 10:36 PM, Angel Leon <gubatron@gmail•com> wrote:

> I believe 100MB is still very conservative, I think that's barely 666 tps.
>
> I also find it not very creative that people are imagining these limits
> for 10 billion people using bitcoin, I think bitcoin's potential is
> realized with computers transacting with computers, which can eat those 666
> tps in a single scoup (what if bittorrent developers got creative with
> seeding, or someone created a decentralized paid itunes on top of bitcoin,
> or the openbazaar developers actually pulled a decentralized amazon with no
> off-chain transaction since they want the thing to be fully decentralized,
> bitcoin would collapse right away)
>
> I truly hope people see past regular people running nodes at home, that's
> never going to happen. This should be about the miner's networking, storage
> and cpu capacity. They will have gigabit access, they will have shitload of
> storage, and they already have plenty of processing power, all of which are
> only going to get cheaper.
>
> In order to have the success we all dream we'll need gigabit blocks. Let's
> hope adoption remains slow.
>
> http://twitter.com/gubatron
>
> On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 1:51 PM, Alan Reiner <etotheipi@gmail•com> wrote:
>
>> Actually I believe that side chains and off-main-chain transactions will
>> be a critical part for the overall scalability of the network.  I was
>> actually trying to make the point that (insert some huge block size here)
>> will be needed to even accommodate the reduced traffic.
>>
>> I believe that it is definitely over 20MB. If it was determined to be 100
>> MB ten years from now, that wouldn't surprise me.
>>
>> Sent from my overpriced smartphone
>> On May 8, 2015 1:17 PM, "Andrew" <onelineproof@gmail•com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 2:59 PM, Alan Reiner <etotheipi@gmail•com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> This isn't about "everyone's coffee".  This is about an absolute
>>>> minimum amount of participation by people who wish to use the network.   If
>>>> our goal is really for bitcoin to really be a global, open transaction
>>>> network that makes money fluid, then 7tps is already a failure.  If even 5%
>>>> of the world (350M people) was using the network for 1 tx per month
>>>> (perhaps to open payment channels, or shift money between side chains),
>>>> we'll be above 100 tps.  And that doesn't include all the non-individuals
>>>> (organizations) that want to use it.
>>>>
>>>
>>>> The goals of "a global transaction network" and "everyone must be able
>>>> to run a full node with their $200 dell laptop" are not compatible.  We
>>>> need to accept that a global transaction system cannot be fully/constantly
>>>> audited by everyone and their mother.  The important feature of the network
>>>> is that it is open and anyone *can* get the history and verify it.  But not
>>>> everyone is required to.   Trying to promote a system wher000e the history
>>>> can be forever handled by a low-end PC is already falling out of reach,
>>>> even with our miniscule 7 tps.  Clinging to that goal needlessly limits the
>>>> capability for the network to scale to be a useful global payments system
>>>>
>>>
>>> These are good points and got me thinking (but I think you're wrong). If
>>> we really want each of the 10 billion people soon using bitcoin once per
>>> month, that will require 500MB blocks. That's about 2 TB per month. And if
>>> you relay it to 4 peers, it's 10 TB per month. Which I suppose is doable
>>> for a home desktop, so you can just run a pruned full node with all
>>> transactions from the past month. But how do you sync all those
>>> transactions if you've never done this before or it's been a while since
>>> you did? I think it currently takes at least 3 hours to fully sync 30 GB of
>>> transactions. So 2 TB will take 8 days, then you take a bit more time to
>>> sync the days that passed while you were syncing. So that's doable, but at
>>> a certain point, like 10 TB per month (still only 5 transactions per month
>>> per person), you will need 41 days to sync that month, so you will never
>>> catch up. So I think in order to keep the very important property of anyone
>>> being able to start clean and verify the thing, then we need to think of
>>> bitcoin as a system that does transactions for a large number of users at
>>> once in one transaction, and not a system where each person will make a
>>> ~monthly transaction on. We need to therefore rely on sidechains,
>>> treechains, lightning channels, etc...
>>>
>>> I'm not a bitcoin wizard and this is just my second post on this mailing
>>> list, so I may be missing something. So please someone, correct me if I'm
>>> wrong.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 05/07/2015 03:54 PM, Jeff Garzik wrote:
>>>>
>>>>  On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 3:31 PM, Alan Reiner <etotheipi@gmail•com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>  (2) Leveraging fee pressure at 1MB to solve the problem is actually
>>>>> really a bad idea.  It's really bad while Bitcoin is still growing, and
>>>>> relying on fee pressure at 1 MB severely impacts attractiveness and
>>>>> adoption potential of Bitcoin (due to high fees and unreliability).  But
>>>>> more importantly, it ignores the fact that for a 7 tps is pathetic for a
>>>>> global transaction system.  It is a couple orders of magnitude too low for
>>>>> any meaningful commercial activity to occur.  If we continue with a cap of
>>>>> 7 tps forever, Bitcoin *will* fail.  Or at best, it will fail to be
>>>>> useful for the vast majority of the world (which probably leads to
>>>>> failure).  We shouldn't be talking about fee pressure until we hit 700 tps,
>>>>> which is probably still too low.
>>>>>
>>>>  [...]
>>>>
>>>>  1) Agree that 7 tps is too low
>>>>
>>>>  2) Where do you want to go?  Should bitcoin scale up to handle all
>>>> the world's coffees?
>>>>
>>>>  This is hugely unrealistic.  700 tps is 100MB blocks, 14.4 GB/day --
>>>> just for a single feed.  If you include relaying to multiple nodes, plus
>>>> serving 500 million SPV clients en grosse, who has the capacity to run such
>>>> a node?  By the time we get to fee pressure, in your scenario, our network
>>>> node count is tiny and highly centralized.
>>>>
>>>>  3) In RE "fee pressure" -- Do you see the moral hazard to a
>>>> software-run system?  It is an intentional, human decision to flood the
>>>> market with supply, thereby altering the economics, forcing fees to remain
>>>> low in the hopes of achieving adoption.  I'm pro-bitcoin and obviously want
>>>> to see bitcoin adoption - but I don't want to sacrifice every decentralized
>>>> principle and become a central banker in order to get there.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> One dashboard for servers and applications across Physical-Virtual-Cloud
>>>> Widest out-of-the-box monitoring support with 50+ applications
>>>> Performance metrics, stats and reports that give you Actionable Insights
>>>> Deep dive visibility with transaction tracing using APM Insight.
>>>> http://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/290420510;117567292;y
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Bitcoin-development mailing list
>>>> Bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net
>>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> PGP: B6AC 822C 451D 6304 6A28  49E9 7DB7 011C D53B 5647
>>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> One dashboard for servers and applications across Physical-Virtual-Cloud
>> Widest out-of-the-box monitoring support with 50+ applications
>> Performance metrics, stats and reports that give you Actionable Insights
>> Deep dive visibility with transaction tracing using APM Insight.
>> http://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/290420510;117567292;y
>> _______________________________________________
>> Bitcoin-development mailing list
>> Bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>>
>>
>


-- 
PGP: B6AC 822C 451D 6304 6A28  49E9 7DB7 011C D53B 5647

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 13387 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2015-05-09 12:02                                 ` Andrew

  2015-05-09 18:33                                     ` Andrew
  
From: Justus Ranvier @ 2015-05-09 12:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: bitcoin-development

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2253 bytes --]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 05/09/2015 02:02 PM, Andrew wrote:
> The nice thing about 1 MB is that you can store ALL bitcoin
> transactions relevant to your lifetime (~100 years) on one 5 TB
> hard drive (1*6*24*365*100=5256000). Any regular person can run a
> full node and store this 5 TB hard drive easily at their home. With
> 10 MB blocks you need a 50 TB drive just for your bitcoin
> transactions! This is not doable for most regular people due to
> space and monetary constraints. Being able to review all
> transactions relevant to your lifetime is one of the key important 
> properties of Bitcoin. How else can people audit the financial
> transactions of companies and governments that are using the
> Bitcoin blockchain? How else can we achieve this level of
> transparency that is essential to keeping corrupt
> governments/companies in check? How else can we keep track of our 
> own personal transactions without relying on others to keep track
> of them for us? As time passes, storage technology may increase,
> but so may human life expectancy. So yes, in this sense, 1 MB just
> may be the magic number.

How many individuals and companies do you propose will ever use
Bitcoin (order of magnitude estimates are fine)

Whatever number you select above, please describe approximately how
many lifetime Bitcoin transactions each individual and company will be
capable of performing with a 1 MB block size limit.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=RPhK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[-- Attachment #2: 0xEAD9E623.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-keys, Size: 18381 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2015-05-09 12:53                                   ` Justus Ranvier

  
From: Andrew @ 2015-05-09 18:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Justus Ranvier;  Bitcoin Dev

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4725 bytes --]

On Sat, May 9, 2015 at 12:53 PM, Justus Ranvier <justusranvier@riseup•net>
wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 05/09/2015 02:02 PM, Andrew wrote:
> > The nice thing about 1 MB is that you can store ALL bitcoin
> > transactions relevant to your lifetime (~100 years) on one 5 TB
> > hard drive (1*6*24*365*100=5256000). Any regular person can run a
> > full node and store this 5 TB hard drive easily at their home. With
> > 10 MB blocks you need a 50 TB drive just for your bitcoin
> > transactions! This is not doable for most regular people due to
> > space and monetary constraints. Being able to review all
> > transactions relevant to your lifetime is one of the key important
> > properties of Bitcoin. How else can people audit the financial
> > transactions of companies and governments that are using the
> > Bitcoin blockchain? How else can we achieve this level of
> > transparency that is essential to keeping corrupt
> > governments/companies in check? How else can we keep track of our
> > own personal transactions without relying on others to keep track
> > of them for us? As time passes, storage technology may increase,
> > but so may human life expectancy. So yes, in this sense, 1 MB just
> > may be the magic number.
>
> How many individuals and companies do you propose will ever use
> Bitcoin (order of magnitude estimates are fine)
>
> Whatever number you select above, please describe approximately how
> many lifetime Bitcoin transactions each individual and company will be
> capable of performing with a 1 MB block size limit.
>

I would expect at least 10 billion people (directly or indirectly) to be
using it at once for at least 100 years. But I think it's pointless to
guess how many will use it, but rather make the system ready for 10 billion
people. The point is that for small transactions, they will be done
off-chain. The actual Bitcoin blockchain will only show very large
transactions (such as a military purchasing a new space shuttle) or
aggregate transactions (i.e. a transaction consisting of multiple smaller
transactions done off-chain). There can also be multiple layers of chains
creating a tree-like structure. Each chain above will validate the
aggregate transactions of the chain below. You can think of the Bitcoin
blockchain as the "hypervisor" that manages all the other chains. While
your coffee purchase 4 days ago may not be directly visible within the
Bitcoin blockchain (the main chain), you can trace it down the sequence of
chains until you find it. Same with that fancy dinner your government MP
paid for using public funds. You don't have to store a copy of all
transactions that occurred for each chain in existence, but rather just the
transactions for the chains that you use or are relevant to you.

As you see, this kind of system is totally transparent to all users and
totally flexible (you can choose your sub chains). The flexibility also
allows you to have arbitrarily fast transactions (choose a chain or
lightning channel attached to that chain that supports it), and you can
enjoy a wide variety of features from other chains, like using one chain
that is known to have good anonymity properties.


> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJVTgNcAAoJECpf2nDq2eYjM8AP/2kwSF+HMPR1KdaZsATL4rog
> xSS97Q5iEX8StA61jUqHQmpXL5pG6z5DeeKT/liwcMnYnVqOEOLvoVctr3gXfgRz
> 9GJeTOlmN5l9xBeX/nWa0A2ql0kWZpYolBS1FwYadWReAD8R0X9UeBd9YXLZNy33
> Ow9JjwRjKHhsuyrlMP8pRDKlGPoa/U+2aW4FwiysMLa0Gu6dbFjTrp3bHw4Fccpi
> X0E/aDN68U4FV+lZ4NzkMsBK9VARzmC8KI0DQ540pqfkcnyoYf0VERl/gslPWhfq
> t6Rqa7vHHMqFe82lgCd3ji8Qhsz8oBrDS4u4jqwATvgihgImOB6K85JoKmf3y2JS
> jByjMGd4Ep0F80Z2MRhi6HuEoRU69uY2u6l9bZxMjzvLX8sG6QTNk3uLMS3ARXcY
> JBjZ/g13DXgcRj01fq05CHbCTJYZgTA9pRZTY+ZKH4r0mu86b9ua7hjvyKHS6q54
> uaFmRkNcnKlpCY+fvH/JUdvvmwrA0ETUdHhRyk8vzWIMi+aH4//GwrCmBNRrugzv
> 9JtQ1BC+tQqtSX2VkFEhAVISitgkBqurVVlGk18FvVKPFO8cnFS/6NWoPE0WLLzW
> 2pTuhEPjdz9UAHD3RW601rb4C0LbuwVlGO4tYBjyqCmk/vBlES2XIjQKctXZLBEy
> eLgn3gMwEXUTU6UdGyvb
> =RPhK
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> One dashboard for servers and applications across Physical-Virtual-Cloud
> Widest out-of-the-box monitoring support with 50+ applications
> Performance metrics, stats and reports that give you Actionable Insights
> Deep dive visibility with transaction tracing using APM Insight.
> http://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/290420510;117567292;y
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>
>


-- 
PGP: B6AC 822C 451D 6304 6A28  49E9 7DB7 011C D53B 5647

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 5775 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2015-05-08 15:49                           ` Jeff Garzik

  2015-05-13 11:25                               ` Angel Leon
  
From: Oliver Egginger @ 2015-05-13 10:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: bitcoin-development

08.05.2015 at 5:49 Jeff Garzik wrote:
> To repeat, the very first point in my email reply was: "Agree that 7 tps
> is too low"  

For interbank trading that would maybe enough but I don't know.

I'm not a developer but as a (former) user and computer scientist I'm
also asking myself what is the core of the problem? Personally, for
privacy reasons I do not want to leave a footprint in the blockchain for
each pizza. And why should this expense be good for trivial things of
everyday life?

If one encounters the block boundary, he or she will do more effort or
give up. I'm thinking most people will give up because their
transactions are not really economical. It is much better for them to
use third-partys (or another payment system).

And that's where we are at the heart of the problem. The Bitcoin
third-party economy. With few exceptions this is pure horror. More worse
than any used car dealer. And the community just waits that things get
better. But that will never happen of its own accord. We are living in a
Wild West Town. So we need a Sheriff and many other things.

We need a small but good functioning economy around the blockchain. To
create one, we have to accept a few unpleasant truths. I do not know if
the community is ready for it.

Nevertheless, I know that some companies do a good job. But they have to
prevail against their dishonest competitors.

People take advantage of the blockchain, because they no longer trust
anyone. But this will not scale in the long run.

- oliver










 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2015-05-13 10:37                             ` Oliver Egginger

  
From: Angel Leon @ 2015-05-13 11:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Oliver Egginger;  Bitcoin Dev

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3374 bytes --]

> Personally, for privacy reasons I do not want to leave a footprint in the
blockchain for each pizza. And  why should this expense be good for trivial
things of everyday life?

Then what's the point?
Isn't this supposed to be an Open transactional network, it doesn't matter
if you don't want that, what matters is what people want to do with it, and
there's nothing you can do to stop someone from opening a wallet and buying
a pizza with it, except the core of the problem you ask yourself about,
which is, the minute this goes mainstream and people get their wallets out
the whole thing will collapse, regardless of what you want the blockchain
for.

Why talk about the billions of unbanked and all the romantic vision if you
can't let them use their money however they want in a decentralized
fashion. Otherwise let's just go back to centralized banking because the
minute you want to put things off chain, you need an organization that will
need to respond to government regulation and that's the end for the
billions of unbanked to be part of the network.


http://twitter.com/gubatron

On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 6:37 AM, Oliver Egginger <bitcoin@olivere•de> wrote:

> 08.05.2015 at 5:49 Jeff Garzik wrote:
> > To repeat, the very first point in my email reply was: "Agree that 7 tps
> > is too low"
>
> For interbank trading that would maybe enough but I don't know.
>
> I'm not a developer but as a (former) user and computer scientist I'm
> also asking myself what is the core of the problem? Personally, for
> privacy reasons I do not want to leave a footprint in the blockchain for
> each pizza. And why should this expense be good for trivial things of
> everyday life?
>
> If one encounters the block boundary, he or she will do more effort or
> give up. I'm thinking most people will give up because their
> transactions are not really economical. It is much better for them to
> use third-partys (or another payment system).
>
> And that's where we are at the heart of the problem. The Bitcoin
> third-party economy. With few exceptions this is pure horror. More worse
> than any used car dealer. And the community just waits that things get
> better. But that will never happen of its own accord. We are living in a
> Wild West Town. So we need a Sheriff and many other things.
>
> We need a small but good functioning economy around the blockchain. To
> create one, we have to accept a few unpleasant truths. I do not know if
> the community is ready for it.
>
> Nevertheless, I know that some companies do a good job. But they have to
> prevail against their dishonest competitors.
>
> People take advantage of the blockchain, because they no longer trust
> anyone. But this will not scale in the long run.
>
> - oliver
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> One dashboard for servers and applications across Physical-Virtual-Cloud
> Widest out-of-the-box monitoring support with 50+ applications
> Performance metrics, stats and reports that give you Actionable Insights
> Deep dive visibility with transaction tracing using APM Insight.
> http://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/290420510;117567292;y
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 4550 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]