Rather than speculating on fake markets, why don’t we use theory, empirical data, and engineering to fix the damn problems?
> On Aug 4, 2015, at 11:28 AM, Owen via bitcoin-dev > <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > Given there is no money at stake in these prediction games, it is no surprise > that the results are implausible. > > On August 4, 2015 10:22:19 AM EDT, Anthony Towns via bitcoin-dev > <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > On 4 August 2015 at 01:22, Gavin Andresen via bitcoin-dev > <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>> wrote: > And the preliminary results of using a prediction market to try to wrestle > with the tough tradeoffs looks roughly correct to me, too: > https://blocksizedebate.com/ <https://blocksizedebate.com/> > > The scicast prediction market is shutdown atm (since early July?) so those > numbers aren't live. But... > > Network hash rate > 3,255.17 PH/s (same block size) > 5,032.64 PH/s (block size increase) > > 4,969.68 PH/s (no replace-by-fee) > 3,132.09 PH/s (replace-by-fee) > > Those numbers seem completely implausible: that's ~2.9-3.6 doublings of the > current hashrate (< 400PH/s) in 17 months, when it's taken 12 months for the > last doubling, and there's a block reward reduction due in that period too. > (That might've been a reasonable prediction sometime in the past year, when > doublings were slowing from once every ~45 days to once a year; it just > doesn't seem a supportable prediction now) > > That the PH/s rate is higher with bigger blocks is surprising, but given that > site also predicts USD/BTC will be $280 with no change but $555 with bigger > blocks, so I assume that difference is mostly due to price. Also, 12.5btc at > $555 each is about 23 btc at $300 each, so if that price increase is > realistic, it would compensate for almost all of the block reward reduction. > > Daily transaction volume > 168,438.22 tx/day (same block size) > 193,773.08 tx/day (block size increase) > > 192,603.80 tx/day (no replace-by-fee) > 168,406.73 tx/day (replace-by-fee) > > That's only a 15% increase in transaction volume due to the block size > increase; I would have expected more? 168k-194k tx/day is also only a 30%-50% > increase in transaction volume from 130k tx/day currently. If that's really > the case, then a 1.5MB-2MB max block size would probably be enough for the > next two years... > > (Predicting that the node count will drop from ~5000 to ~1200 due to > increasing block sizes seems quite an indictment as far as centralisation > risks go; but given I'm not that convinced by the other predictions, I'm not > sure I want to give that much weight to that one either) > > Cheers, > aj > > -- > Anthony Towns <a...@erisian.com.au <mailto:a...@erisian.com.au>> > > > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev> > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
