{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub149tvqh6gesh22h60jrehl5clrxscx6q65wznq9ty6pae8sxq00esg5vasy","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub149tvqh6gesh22h60jrehl5clrxscx6q65wznq9ty6pae8sxq00esg5vasy","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2017-03-29\n📝 Original message:\u003e I suggest you take a look at this paper: http://fc16.ifca.ai/\nbitcoin/papers/CDE+16.pdf  It may help you form opinions based in science\nrather than what appears to be nothing more than a hunch.  It shows that\neven 4MB is unsafe.  SegWit provides up to this limit.\n\nI find this paper wholly unconvincing.  Firstly I note that he assumes the\nprice of electricity is 10c/kwh in Oct 2015.  As a miner operating and\nbuilding large farms at that time, I can guarantee you that almost no large\nmines were paying anything even close to that high for electricity, even\nthen.  If he had performed a detailed search on the big mines he would have\nfound as much, or could have asked, but it seems like it was simply made\nup.  Even U.S. industrial electricity prices are lower than that.\n\nMoreover, he focuses his math almost entirely around mining, asserting in\ntable 1 that 98% of the \"cost of processing a transaction\" as being\nmining.  That completely misunderstands the purpose of mining.  Miners\noccasionally trivially resolve double spend conflicts, but miners are\npaid(and played against eachother) for economic security against\nattackers.  They aren't paid to process transactions.  Nodes process\ntransactions and are paid nothing to do so, and their costs are 100x more\nrelevant to the blocksize debate than a paper about miner costs.  Miner's\noperational costs relate to economic protection formulas, not the cost of a\ntransaction.\n\nHe also states: \"the top 10% of nodes receive a 1MB block 2.4min earlier\nthan the bottom 10% — meaning that depending on their access to nodes, some\nminers could obtain a significant and unfair lead over others in solving\nhash puzzles.\"\n\nHe's using 2012-era logic of mining.  By October 2015, no miner of any size\nwas in the bottom 10% of node propagation.  If they were a small or medium\nsized miner, they mined shares on a pool and would be at most 30 seconds\nbehind the pool.  Pools that didn't get blocks within 20 seconds weren't\npools for long.  If they were a huge miner, they ran their own pool with\ngood propagation times.  For a scientific paper, this is reading like\nsomeone who had absolutely no idea what was really going on in the mining\nworld at the time.  But again, none of that relates to transaction \"costs.\"\n Transactions cost nodes money; protecting the network costs miners money.\nMiners are rewarded with fees; nodes are rewarded only by utility and price\nincreases.\n\nOn Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 10:53 AM, Alphonse Pace via bitcoin-dev \u003c\nbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e Juan,\n\u003e\n\u003e I suggest you take a look at this paper: http://fc16.ifca.ai/\n\u003e bitcoin/papers/CDE+16.pdf  It may help you form opinions based in science\n\u003e rather than what appears to be nothing more than a hunch.  It shows that\n\u003e even 4MB is unsafe.  SegWit provides up to this limit.\n\u003e\n\u003e 8MB is most definitely not safe today.\n\u003e\n\u003e Whether it is unsafe or impossible is the topic, since Wang Chun proposed\n\u003e making the block size limit 32MiB.\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e Wang Chun,\n\u003e\n\u003e Can you specify what meeting you are talking about?  You seem to have not\n\u003e replied on that point.  Who were the participants and what was the purpose\n\u003e of this meeting?\n\u003e\n\u003e -Alphonse\n\u003e\n\u003e On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 12:33 PM, Juan Garavaglia \u003cjg at 112bit.com\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\n\u003e\u003e Alphonse,\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e In my opinion if 1MB limit was ok in 2010, 8MB limit is ok on 2016 and\n\u003e\u003e 32MB limit valid in next halving, from network, storage and CPU perspective\n\u003e\u003e or 1MB was too high in 2010 what is possible or 1MB is to low today.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e If is unsafe or impossible to raise the blocksize is a different topic.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e Regards\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e Juan\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e *From:* bitcoin-dev-bounces at lists.linuxfoundation.org [mailto:\n\u003e\u003e bitcoin-dev-bounces at lists.linuxfoundation.org] *On Behalf Of *Alphonse\n\u003e\u003e Pace via bitcoin-dev\n\u003e\u003e *Sent:* Tuesday, March 28, 2017 2:24 PM\n\u003e\u003e *To:* Wang Chun \u003c1240902 at gmail.com\u003e; Bitcoin Protocol Discussion \u003c\n\u003e\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e\n\u003e\u003e *Subject:* Re: [bitcoin-dev] Hard fork proposal from last week's meeting\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e What meeting are you referring to?  Who were the participants?\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e Removing the limit but relying on the p2p protocol is not really a true\n\u003e\u003e 32MiB limit, but a limit of whatever transport methods provide.  This can\n\u003e\u003e lead to differing consensus if alternative layers for relaying are used.\n\u003e\u003e What you seem to be asking for is an unbound block size (or at least\n\u003e\u003e determined by whatever miners produce).  This has the possibility (and even\n\u003e\u003e likelihood) of removing many participants from the network, including many\n\u003e\u003e small miners.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e 32MB in less than 3 years also appears to be far beyond limits of safety\n\u003e\u003e which are known to exist far sooner, and we cannot expect hardware and\n\u003e\u003e networking layers to improve by those amounts in that time.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e It also seems like it would be much better to wait until SegWit activates\n\u003e\u003e in order to truly measure the effects on the network from this increased\n\u003e\u003e capacity before committing to any additional increases.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e -Alphonse\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 11:59 AM, Wang Chun via bitcoin-dev \u003c\n\u003e\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e I've proposed this hard fork approach last year in Hong Kong Consensus\n\u003e\u003e but immediately rejected by coredevs at that meeting, after more than\n\u003e\u003e one year it seems that lots of people haven't heard of it. So I would\n\u003e\u003e post this here again for comment.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e The basic idea is, as many of us agree, hard fork is risky and should\n\u003e\u003e be well prepared. We need a long time to deploy it.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e Despite spam tx on the network, the block capacity is approaching its\n\u003e\u003e limit, and we must think ahead. Shall we code a patch right now, to\n\u003e\u003e remove the block size limit of 1MB, but not activate it until far in\n\u003e\u003e the future. I would propose to remove the 1MB limit at the next block\n\u003e\u003e halving in spring 2020, only limit the block size to 32MiB which is\n\u003e\u003e the maximum size the current p2p protocol allows. This patch must be\n\u003e\u003e in the immediate next release of Bitcoin Core.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e With this patch in core's next release, Bitcoin works just as before,\n\u003e\u003e no fork will ever occur, until spring 2020. But everyone knows there\n\u003e\u003e will be a fork scheduled. Third party services, libraries, wallets and\n\u003e\u003e exchanges will have enough time to prepare for it over the next three\n\u003e\u003e years.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e We don't yet have an agreement on how to increase the block size\n\u003e\u003e limit. There have been many proposals over the past years, like\n\u003e\u003e BIP100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 109, 148, 248, BU, and so\n\u003e\u003e on. These hard fork proposals, with this patch already in Core's\n\u003e\u003e release, they all become soft fork. We'll have enough time to discuss\n\u003e\u003e all these proposals and decide which one to go. Take an example, if we\n\u003e\u003e choose to fork to only 2MB, since 32MiB already scheduled, reduce it\n\u003e\u003e from 32MiB to 2MB will be a soft fork.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e Anyway, we must code something right now, before it becomes too late.\n\u003e\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e\u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e\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\u003e\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20170329/c0cf92f1/attachment.html\u003e"}