{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub15wz8j5cse6sexlw6f5q7arc5efe5hxn6kcxxyy222et8qms4u3lsemaru8","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub15wz8j5cse6sexlw6f5q7arc5efe5hxn6kcxxyy222et8qms4u3lsemaru8","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2015-08-08\n📝 Original message:I see value in lowering the block size or leaving it where it is. We expect\nto run out of space, and I think it's a good idea to prepare for that,\nrather than avoid it.  When we run out of space and the block size is low,\nwe will see problems.  If we raise the block size, we will NOT see these\nproblems until bitcoin is bigger and more important and the pressure is\nhigher.\n\nSomeone mentioned that when the backlog grows faster than it shrinks, that\nis a real problem.  I don't think it is.  It is a problem for those who\ndon't wait for even one confirmation, but backlogs in the past have already\nstarted training users to wait for at least one confirmation, or go\noff-chain.  I am comfortable leaving those zero-conf people in a little bit\nof trouble.  Everyone else can double-spend (perhaps that's not as easy as\nit should be in bitcoin core) and use a higher fee, thus competing for\nblock space.  Yes, $5 transactions suck, but $0.15 is not so bad and about\ntwice the average right now.\n\nMeanwhile, the higher fees everyone starts feeling like paying, along with\nthe visibility of the problems caused by full-blocks, will provide\nexcellent justification and motivation for increasing the limit.  My\nfavorite thing to do is to have a solution ready for a problem I expect to\nsee, see the problem (so I can measure things about it) and then implement\nthe solution.\n\nIn my experience, the single biggest reason not to run a full node has to\ndo with starting from scratch: \"I used to run a full node, but last time I\nhad to download the full blockchain, it took ___ days, so I just use (some\nwallet) now.\"  I think that has been improved with headers-first, but many\npeople don't know it.\n\nI have some ideas how a \"full node\" could postpone being \"full\" but still\nbe nearly completely operational so that the delay between startup and\nhaving a full blockchain is nearly painless.  It involves bonded\nrepresentation of important not-so-large pieces of data (blocks that have\nmy transactions, the complete UTXO as of some height, etc.).  If I know\nthat I have some btc, I could offer it (say, 100 or 1000 transaction fees'\nworth) to anyone who will guarantee good data to me, and then when I have\nthe whole blockchain, I will know if they were honest.  If done right, the\nwhole network could know whether or not they were honest and enforce the\nbond if they weren't.  Credit the Lightening paper for parts of this idea.\n\nDave\n\nOn Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 4:06 PM, Adam Back via bitcoin-dev \u003c\nbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e Please try to focus on constructive technical comments.\n\u003e\n\u003e On 7 August 2015 at 23:12, Thomas Zander via bitcoin-dev\n\u003e \u003cbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e \u003e What will the backlash be when people here that are pushing for\n\u003e \"off-chain-\n\u003e \u003e transactions\" fail to produce a properly working alternative, which\n\u003e \u003e essentially means we have to say NO to more users.\n\u003e\n\u003e But \u003e 99% of Bitcoin transactions are already off-chain.  There are\n\u003e multiple competing companies offering consumer \u0026 retail service with\n\u003e off-chain settlement.\n\u003e\n\u003e I wasnt clear but it seemed in your previous mail that you seemed to\n\u003e say you dont mind trusting other people with your money, and so\n\u003e presumably you are OK using these services, and so have no problem?\n\u003e\n\u003e \u003e At this time and this size of bitcoin community, my personal experience\n\u003e (and\n\u003e \u003e I've been part of many communities) saying NO to new customers\n\u003e\n\u003e Who said no to anything?  The systems of off-chain transfer already\n\u003e exist and are by comparison to Bitcoins protocol simple and rapid to\n\u003e adapt and scale.\n\u003e\n\u003e Indications are that we can even do off-chain at scale with Bitcoin\n\u003e similar trust-minimisation with lightning, and duplex payment\n\u003e channels; and people are working on that right now.\n\u003e\n\u003e I think it would be interesting and useful for someone, with an\n\u003e interest in low trust, high scale transactions, to work on and propose\n\u003e an interoperability standard and API for such off-chain services to be\n\u003e accessed by wallets, and perhaps periodic on-chain inter-service\n\u003e netting.\n\u003e\n\u003e Adam\n\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\u003e\n\n\n\n-- \nI like to provide some work at no charge to prove my value. Do you need a\ntechie?\nI own Litmocracy \u003chttp://www.litmocracy.com\u003e and Meme Racing\n\u003chttp://www.memeracing.net\u003e (in alpha).\nI'm the webmaster for The Voluntaryist \u003chttp://www.voluntaryist.com\u003e which\nnow accepts Bitcoin.\nI also code for The Dollar Vigilante \u003chttp://dollarvigilante.com/\u003e.\n\"He ought to find it more profitable to play by the rules\" - Satoshi\nNakamoto\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150808/904426c0/attachment.html\u003e"}