{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"Jameson Lopp [ARCHIVE] (npub1gh…akqmn)","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1ghgfr3aumwuxwnwghywxpaejxpf6k9pjcnyg9lfdnztlu5pwa0ksyakqmn","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2015-07-23\n📝 Original message:On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 3:14 PM, Eric Lombrozo \u003celombrozo at gmail.com\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e\n\u003e On Jul 23, 2015, at 11:10 AM, Jameson Lopp \u003cjameson.lopp at gmail.com\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\n\u003e Larger block sizes don't scale the network, they merely increase how much\n\u003e load we allow the network to bear.\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e Very well put, Jameson. And the cost of bearing this load must be paid\n\u003e for. And unless we’re willing to accept that computational resources are\n\u003e finite and subject to the same economic issues as any other finite\n\u003e resource, our incentive model collapses the security of the network will be\n\u003e significantly at risk. Whatever your usability concerns may be regarding\n\u003e fees, when the security model’s busted usability issues are moot.\n\u003e\n\u003e Larger blocks support more transactions…but they also incur Ω(n) overhead\n\u003e in bandwidth, CPU, and space. These are finite resources that must be paid\n\u003e for somehow…and as we all already know miners are willing to cut corners on\n\u003e all this and push the costs onto others (not to mention wallets and online\n\u003e block explorers). And who can really blame them? It’s rational behavior\n\u003e given the skewed incentives.\n\u003e\n\nRunning a node certainly has real-world costs that shouldn't be ignored.\nThere are plenty of advocates who argue that Bitcoin should strive to keep\nit feasible for the average user to run their own node (as opposed to\nSatoshi's vision of beefy servers in data centers.) My impression is that\neven most of these advocates agree that it will be acceptable to eventually\nincrease block sizes as resources become faster and cheaper because it\nwon't be 'pricing out' the average user from running their own node. If\nthis is the case, it seems to me that we have a problem given that there is\nno established baseline for the acceptable performance / hardware cost\nrequirements to run a node. I'd really like to see further clarification\nfrom these advocates around the acceptable cost of running a node and how\nwe can measure the global reduction in hardware and bandwidth costs in\norder to establish a baseline that we can use to justify additional\nresource usage by nodes.\n\n- Jameson\n\n\u003e\n\u003e On the flip side, the scalability proposals will still require larger\n\u003e blocks if we are ever to support anything close to resembling \"mainstream\"\n\u003e usage. This is not an either/or proposition - we clearly need both.\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e Mainstream usage of cryptocurrency will be enabled primarily by direct\n\u003e party-to-party contract negotiation…with the use of the blockchain\n\u003e primarily as a dispute resolution mechanism. The block size isn’t about\n\u003e scaling but about supply and demand of finite resources. As demand for\n\u003e block space increases, we can address it either by increasing computational\n\u003e resources (block size) or by increasing fees. But to do the former we need\n\u003e a way to offset the increase in cost by making sure that those who\n\u003e contribute said resources have incentive to do so.\n\u003e\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150723/9407b8c4/attachment.html\u003e"}