{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1l899vmy2zhg9zr96jvnxt85ayddd26qu36m02k22759e9djqldnqrhm88x","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1l899vmy2zhg9zr96jvnxt85ayddd26qu36m02k22759e9djqldnqrhm88x","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2015-05-07\n📝 Original message:I'm mainly just an observer on this. I mostly agree with Pieter. Also, I\nthink the main reason why people like Gavin and Mike Hearn are trying to\nrush this through is because they have some kind of \"apps\" that depend on\nzero conf instant transactions, so this would of course require more\ntraffic on the blockchain. I think people like Gavin or Mike should state\nclearly what kind of (rigorous) system for instant transactions is\nsatisfactory for use in their applications. Be it lightning or something\nsimilar, what is good enough? And no zero conf is not a real secure system.\nThen once we know what is good enough for them (and everyone else), we can\nimplement it as a soft fork into the protocol, and it's a win win situation\nfor both sides (we can also benefit from all the new users people like Mike\nare trying bring in).\n\nOn Thu, May 7, 2015 at 10:52 AM, Jorge Timón \u003cjtimon at jtimon.cc\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 11:25 AM, Mike Hearn \u003cmike at plan99.net\u003e wrote:\n\u003e \u003e I observed to Wladimir and Gavin in private that this timeline meant a\n\u003e change to the block size was unlikely to get into 0.11, leaving only 0.12,\n\u003e which would give everyone only a few months to upgrade in order to fork the\n\u003e chain by the end of the winter growth season. That seemed tight.\n\u003e\n\u003e Can you please elaborate on what terrible things will happen if we\n\u003e don't increase the block size by winter this year?\n\u003e I assume that you are expecting full blocks by then, have you used any\n\u003e statistical technique to come up with that date or is it just your\n\u003e guess?\n\u003e Because I love wild guesses and mine is that full 1 MB blocks will not\n\u003e happen until June 2017.\n\u003e\n\u003e \u003e What we need to see right now is leadership and a plan, that fits in the\n\u003e \u003e available time window.\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e\u003e\n\u003e \u003e\u003e Certainly a consensus in this kind of technical community should be a\n\u003e \u003e\u003e basic requirement for any serious commitment to blocksize increase.\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e I'm afraid I have come to disagree. I no longer believe this community\n\u003e can\n\u003e \u003e reach consensus on anything protocol related. Some of these arguments\n\u003e have\n\u003e \u003e dragged on for years. Consensus isn't even well defined - consensus of\n\u003e who?\n\u003e \u003e Anyone who shows up? And what happens when, inevitably, no consensus is\n\u003e \u003e reached? Stasis forever?\n\u003e\n\u003e We've successfully reached consensus for several softfork proposals\n\u003e already.\n\u003e I agree with others that hardfork need to be uncontroversial and there\n\u003e should be consensus about them.\n\u003e If you have other ideas for the criteria for hardfork deployment all I'm\n\u003e ears.\n\u003e I just hope that by  \"What we need to see right now is leadership\" you\n\u003e don't mean something like \"when Gaving and Mike agree it's enough to\n\u003e deploy a hardfork\" when you go from vague to concrete.\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e \u003e\u003e Long-term incentive compatibility requires that there be some fee\n\u003e \u003e\u003e pressure, and that blocks be relatively consistently full or very nearly\n\u003e \u003e\u003e full.\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e I disagree. When the money supply eventually dwindles I doubt it will be\n\u003e fee\n\u003e \u003e pressure that funds mining, but as that's a long time in the future, it's\n\u003e \u003e very hard to predict what might happen.\n\u003e\n\u003e Oh, so your answer to \"bitcoin will eventually need to live on fees\n\u003e and we would like to know more about how it will look like then\" it's\n\u003e \"no bitcoin long term it's broken long term but that's far away in the\n\u003e future so let's just worry about the present\".\n\u003e I agree that it's hard to predict that future, but having some\n\u003e competition for block space would actually help us get more data on a\n\u003e similar situation to be able to predict that future better.\n\u003e What you want to avoid at all cost (the block size actually being\n\u003e used), I see as the best opportunity we have to look into the future.\n\u003e\n\u003e \u003e\u003e What we see today are\n\u003e \u003e\u003e transactions enjoying next-block confirmations with nearly zero pressure\n\u003e \u003e\u003e to include any fee at all (though many do because it makes wallet code\n\u003e \u003e\u003e simpler).\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e Many do because free transactions are broken - the relay limiter means\n\u003e \u003e whether a free transaction actually makes it across the network or not is\n\u003e \u003e basically pot luck and there's no way for a wallet to know, short of\n\u003e either\n\u003e \u003e trying it or actually receiving every single transaction and repeating\n\u003e the\n\u003e \u003e calculations. If free transactions weren't broken for all non-full nodes\n\u003e \u003e they'd probably be used a lot more.\n\u003e\n\u003e Free transactions are a gift from miners that run an altruistic policy.\n\u003e That's great but we shouldn't rely on them for the future. They will\n\u003e likely disappear at some point and that's ok.\n\u003e In any case, he's not complaining about the lack of free transactions,\n\u003e more like the opposite.\n\u003e He is saying that's very easy to get free transactions in the next\n\u003e block and blocks aren't full so there's no incentive to include fees\n\u003e to compete for the space.\n\u003e We can talk a lot about \"a fee market\" and build a theoretically\n\u003e perfect fee estimator but we won't actually have a fee market until\n\u003e there's some competition for space.\n\u003e Nobody will pay for space that's abundant just like people don't pay\n\u003e for the air they breath.\n\u003e\n\u003e \u003e What I don't see from you yet is a specific and credible plan that fits\n\u003e \u003e within the next 12 months and which allows Bitcoin to keep growing. Not\n\u003e some\n\u003e \u003e vague handwave like \"let's all use the Lightning network\" (which does not\n\u003e \u003e exist), or \"let's do more research\" (Gavin has done plenty of research),\n\u003e or\n\u003e \u003e \"but what about the risks\" (Bitcoin is full of risks). A plan, with dates\n\u003e \u003e attached, and a strong chance of actually being deployed in time.\n\u003e\n\u003e Ok, this is my plan: we wait 12 months, hope that your estimations are\n\u003e correct (in case that my guess was better than yours, we keep waiting\n\u003e until June 2017) and start having full blocks and people having to\n\u003e wait 2 blocks for their transactions to be confirmed some times.\n\u003e That would be the beginning of a true \"fee market\", something that\n\u003e Gavin used to say was his #1 priority not so long ago (which seems\n\u003e contradictory with his current efforts to avoid that from happening).\n\u003e Having a true fee market seems clearly an advantage.\n\u003e What are supposedly disastrous negative parts of this plan that make\n\u003e an alternative plan (ie: increasing the block size) so necessary and\n\u003e obvious.\n\u003e I think the advocates of the size increase are failing to explain the\n\u003e disadvantages of maintaining the current size. It feels like the\n\u003e explanation are missing because it should be somehow obvious how the\n\u003e sky will burn if we don't increase the block size soon.\n\u003e But, well, it is not obvious to me, so please elaborate on why having\n\u003e a fee market (instead of just an price estimator for a market that\n\u003e doesn't even really exist) would be a disaster.\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e ------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\u003e One dashboard for servers and applications across Physical-Virtual-Cloud\n\u003e Widest out-of-the-box monitoring support with 50+ applications\n\u003e Performance metrics, stats and reports that give you Actionable Insights\n\u003e Deep dive visibility with transaction tracing using APM Insight.\n\u003e http://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/290420510;117567292;y\n\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e Bitcoin-development mailing list\n\u003e Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net\n\u003e https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development\n\u003e\n\n\n\n-- \nPGP: B6AC 822C 451D 6304 6A28  49E9 7DB7 011C D53B 5647\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150507/1bc393f5/attachment.html\u003e"}