{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub19jx6yq5fyvvcn3zlf0f60kr78q7wq5fy5qd9yqlqwumlqqcfc8rsl7fxhj","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub19jx6yq5fyvvcn3zlf0f60kr78q7wq5fy5qd9yqlqwumlqqcfc8rsl7fxhj","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2015-08-07\n📝 Original message:Clarification...\n\nThese are not mutually exclusive.  We can design an increase to blocksize\nthat increases available space on chain AND follow technological\nevolution.  Peter's latest proposal is way too conservative on that front.\n\nAnd given Peter's assertion that demand is infinite there will still be a\nan ocean of off chain transactions for the likes of blockstream to address.\nOn Aug 7, 2015 1:57 PM, \"Ryan Butler\" \u003crryananizer at gmail.com\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e Who said anything about scaling bitcoin to visa levels now?  We're talking\n\u003e about an increase now that scales into the future at a rate that is\n\u003e consistent with technological progress.\n\u003e\n\u003e Peter himself said \"So, I think the block size should follow technological\n\u003e evolution...\".\n\u003e\n\u003e The blocksize increase proposals have been modeled around this very\n\u003e thing.  It's reasonable to increase the blocksize to a point that a\n\u003e reasonable person, with reasonable equipment and internet access can run a\n\u003e node or even a miner with acceptable orphan rates.  Most miners are spv\n\u003e mining anyways.  The 8 or even 20 MB limits are within those parameters.\n\u003e\n\u003e These are not mutually exclusive.  We can design an increase to blocksize\n\u003e that addresses both demand exceeding the available space AND follow\n\u003e technological evolution.  Peter's latest proposal is way too conservative\n\u003e on that front.\n\u003e On Aug 7, 2015 1:25 PM, \"Mark Friedenbach\" \u003cmark at friedenbach.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\n\u003e\u003e Please don't put words into Pieter's mouth. I guarantee you everyone\n\u003e\u003e working on Bitcoin in their heart of hearts would prefer everyone in the\n\u003e\u003e world being able to use the Bitcoin ledger for whatever purpose, if there\n\u003e\u003e were no cost.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e But like any real world engineering issue, this is a matter of tradeoffs.\n\u003e\u003e At the extreme it is simply impossible to scale Bitcoin to the terrabyte\n\u003e\u003e sized blocks that would be necessary to service the entire world's\n\u003e\u003e financial transactions. Not without sacrificing entirely the protection of\n\u003e\u003e policy neutrality achieved through decentralization. And as that is\n\u003e\u003e Bitcoin's only advantage over traditional consensus systems, you would have\n\u003e\u003e to wonder what the point of such an endeavor would be.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e So *somewhere* you have to draw the line, and transactions below that\n\u003e\u003e level are simply pushed into higher level or off-chain protocols.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e The issue, as Pieter and Jorge have been pointing out, is that technical\n\u003e\u003e discussion over where that line should be has been missing from this debate.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 10:47 AM, Ryan Butler via bitcoin-dev \u003c\n\u003e\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e Interesting position there Peter...you fear more people actually using\n\u003e\u003e\u003e bitcoin.  The less on chain transactions the lower the velocity and the\n\u003e\u003e\u003e lower the value of the network.  I would be careful what you ask for\n\u003e\u003e\u003e because you end up having nothing left to even root the security of these\n\u003e\u003e\u003e off chain transactions with and then neither will exist.\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e Nobody ever said you wouldn't run out of capacity at any size.  It's\n\u003e\u003e\u003e quite the fallacy to draw the conclusion from that statement that block\n\u003e\u003e\u003e size should remain far below a capacity it can easily maintain which would\n\u003e\u003e\u003e bring more users/velocity/value to the system.  The outcomes of both of\n\u003e\u003e\u003e those scenarios are asymmetric.  A higher block size can support more users\n\u003e\u003e\u003e and volume.\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e Raising the blocksize isn't out of fear.  It's the realization that we\n\u003e\u003e\u003e are at a point where we can raise it and support more users and\n\u003e\u003e\u003e transactions while keeping the downsides to a minimum (centralization etc).\n\u003e\u003e\u003e On Aug 7, 2015 11:28 AM, \"Pieter Wuille via bitcoin-dev\" \u003c\n\u003e\u003e\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 5:55 PM, Gavin Andresen \u003cgavinandresen at gmail.com\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e \u003e wrote:\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 11:16 AM, Pieter Wuille \u003c\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e pieter.wuille at gmail.com\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e I guess my question (and perhaps that's what Jorge is after): do you\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e feel that blocks should be increased in response to (or for fear of) such a\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e scenario.\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e I think there are multiple reasons to raise the maximum block size,\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e and yes, fear of Bad Things Happening as we run up against the 1MB limit is\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e one of the reasons.\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e I take the opinion of smart engineers who actually do resource\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e planning and have seen what happens when networks run out of capacity very\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e seriously.\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e This is a fundamental disagreement then. I believe that the demand is\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e infinite if you don't set a fee minimum (and I don't think we should), and\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e it just takes time for the market to find a way to fill whatever is\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e available - the rest goes into off-chain systems anyway. You will run out\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e of capacity at any size, and acting out of fear of that reality does not\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e improve the system. Whatever size blocks are actually produced, I believe\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e the result will either be something people consider too small to be\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e competitive (\"you mean Bitcoin can only do 24 transactions per second?\"\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e sounds almost the same as \"you mean Bitcoin can only do 3 transactions per\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e second?\"), or something that is very centralized in practice, and likely\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e both.\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e And if so, if that is a reason for increase now, won't it be a reason\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e for an increase later as well? It is my impression that your answer is yes,\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e that this is why you want to increase the block size quickly and\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e significantly, but correct me if I'm wrong.\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e Sure, it might be a reason for an increase later. Here's my message to\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e in-the-future Bitcoin engineers:  you should consider raising the maximum\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e block size if needed and you think the benefits of doing so (like increased\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e adoption or lower transaction fees or increased reliability) outweigh the\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e costs (like higher operating costs for full-nodes or the disruption caused\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e by ANY consensus rule change).\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e In general that sounds reasonable, but it's a dangerous precedent to\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e make technical decisions based on a fear of change of economics...\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e --\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e Pieter\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e\u003e\u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e\u003e\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e\u003e\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150807/0b5d3fa2/attachment.html\u003e"}