Really, thanks again for replying and not getting mad when I get your
thoughts wrong.
I believe that I've learned more about your position on the subject
today than in months of discussion and blogs (that's not a critique to
your blog post, it's just that they didn't answer to some questions
that
On Aug 6, 2015 9:42 PM, Gavin Andresen via bitcoin-dev
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org wrote:
2. The market minimum fee should be determined by the market. It should
not be up to us to decide when is a good time.
I partially agree. The community should decide what risks it is willing to
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 1:15 PM, Jorge Timón jti...@jtimon.cc wrote:
So I reformulate the question:
1) If not now, when will it be a good time to let the market
minimum fee for miners to mine a transaction rise above zero?
Two answers:
1. If you are willing to wait an infinite amount of
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 6 August 2015 10:21:54 GMT-04:00, Gavin Andresen via bitcoin-dev
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org wrote:
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 10:06 AM, Pieter Wuille
pieter.wui...@gmail.com
wrote:
But you seem to consider that a bad thing. Maybe
On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 6:26 PM, Jorge Timón jti...@jtimon.cc wrote:
Given that for any non-absurdly-big size some transactions will
eventually be priced out, and that the consensus rule serves for
limiting mining centralization (and more indirectly centralization in
general) and not about
First of all, thank you very much for answering the questions, and
apologies for not having formulated them properly (fortunately that's
not an irreparable mistake).
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 6:03 PM, Gavin Andresen gavinandre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 11:25 AM, Jorge Timón
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 3:40 PM, Gavin Andresen via bitcoin-dev
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org wrote:
On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 9:26 PM, Jorge Timón
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org wrote:
This is a much more reasonable position. I wish this had been starting
point of this
On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 9:26 PM, Jorge Timón
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org wrote:
This is a much more reasonable position. I wish this had been starting
point of this discussion instead of the block size limit must be
increased as soon as possible or bitcoin will fail.
It REALLY
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 10:06 AM, Pieter Wuille pieter.wui...@gmail.com
wrote:
But you seem to consider that a bad thing. Maybe saying that you're
claiming that this equals Bitcoin failing is an exaggeration, but you do
believe that evolving towards an ecosystem where there is competition for
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 4:21 PM, Gavin Andresen gavinandre...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 10:06 AM, Pieter Wuille pieter.wui...@gmail.com
wrote:
But you seem to consider that a bad thing. Maybe saying that you're
claiming that this equals Bitcoin failing is an exaggeration, but
Whilst 1mb to 8mb might seem irrelevant from a pure computer science
perspective payment demand is not really infinite, at least not if by
payment we mean something resembling how current Bitcoin users use the
network.
If we define payment to mean the kind of thing that Bitcoin users and
On 8/6/2015 7:53 AM, Pieter Wuille via bitcoin-dev wrote:
So if we would have 8 MB blocks, and there is a sudden influx of users
(or settlement systems, who serve much more users) who want to pay
high fees (let's say 20 transactions per second) making the block
chain inaccessible for low fee
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 3:40 PM, Gavin Andresen gavinandre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 9:26 PM, Jorge Timón
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org wrote:
This is a much more reasonable position. I wish this had been starting
point of this discussion instead of the block size
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 11:25 AM, Jorge Timón jti...@jtimon.cc wrote:
1) If not now when will it be a good time to let fees rise above zero?
Fees are already above zero. See
http://gavinandresen.ninja/the-myth-of-not-full-blocks
2) When will you consider a size to be too dangerous for
On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 4:59 AM, Jorge Timón
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org wrote:
Also I don't think hitting the limit must be necessarily harmful and
if it is, I don't understand why hitting it at 1MB will be more
harmful than hitting it at 2MB, 8MB or 8GB.
I don't think merely
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 4 August 2015 11:12:36 PM AEST, Gavin Andresen via bitcoin-dev
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org wrote:
On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 7:27 AM, Pieter Wuille via bitcoin-dev
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org wrote:
I would say that things
On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 9:29 AM, Elliot Olds elliot.o...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 4:59 AM, Jorge Timón
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org wrote:
Also I don't think hitting the limit must be necessarily harmful and
if it is, I don't understand why hitting it at 1MB will be
Mike's position is that he wants the block size limit
to eventually be removed. That is of course an extreme view. Meanwhile,
your view that the block size should be artificially constrained below the
organic growth curve (in a way that will penalize a majority of existing
and future users) lies
On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 3:12 PM, Gavin Andresen gavinandre...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 7:27 AM, Pieter Wuille via bitcoin-dev
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org wrote:
I would say that things already demonstrately got terrible. The mining
landscape is very centralized, with
Things apparently aren't bad enough to prevent the majority from clamoring
for larger blocks.
If the majority agreed that things had got worse till this point, and that
this was to be blamed on the block size, they would be campaigning for the
other direction. Even yourselves aren't asking for a
On 4 August 2015 at 14:13, Jorge Timón jti...@jtimon.cc wrote:
2) It doesn't matter who is to blame about the current centralization:
the fact remains that the blocksize maximum is the only** consensus
rule to limit mining centralization.
Repeating a claim ad-nauseum doesn't make it
On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 2:19 PM, Hector Chu hector...@gmail.com wrote:
On 4 August 2015 at 12:59, Jorge Timón jti...@jtimon.cc wrote:
That is not my position. Again, I don't know what the right blocksize
for the short term is (I don't think anybody does).
You have no position (i.e. neutral).
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 08/04/2015 08:28 PM, Hector Chu via bitcoin-dev wrote:
On 4 August 2015 at 14:13, Jorge Timón jti...@jtimon.cc
mailto:jti...@jtimon.cc wrote:
2) It doesn't matter who is to blame about the current
centralization: the fact remains that the
On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 9:12 AM, Gavin Andresen via bitcoin-dev
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org wrote:
On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 7:27 AM, Pieter Wuille via bitcoin-dev
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org wrote:
I would say that things already demonstrately got terrible. The mining
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 08/04/2015 08:12 PM, Gavin Andresen via bitcoin-dev wrote:
On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 7:27 AM, Pieter Wuille via bitcoin-dev
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org wrote:
I would say that things
On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 7:27 AM, Pieter Wuille via bitcoin-dev
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org wrote:
I would say that things already demonstrately got terrible. The mining
landscape is very centralized, with apparently a majority depending on
agreements to trust each other's announced
On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 1:34 PM, Hector Chu hector...@gmail.com wrote:
Things apparently aren't bad enough to prevent the majority from clamoring
for larger blocks.
Nobody is preventing anyone from claiming anything. Some developers
are encouraging users to ask for bigger blocks.
Others don't
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 08/04/2015 06:34 PM, Hector Chu via bitcoin-dev wrote:
Things apparently aren't bad enough to prevent the majority from
clamoring for larger blocks.
If the majority agreed that things had got worse till this point,
and that this was to be
On 4 August 2015 at 12:59, Jorge Timón jti...@jtimon.cc wrote:
That is not my position. Again, I don't know what the right blocksize
for the short term is (I don't think anybody does).
You have no position (i.e. neutral). In other words, keeping the existing
limit.
Therefore how the change
On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 3:28 PM, Hector Chu hector...@gmail.com wrote:
On 4 August 2015 at 14:13, Jorge Timón jti...@jtimon.cc wrote:
2) It doesn't matter who is to blame about the current centralization:
the fact remains that the blocksize maximum is the only** consensus
rule to limit mining
On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 12:20:30PM -0400, Gavin Andresen wrote:
On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 10:25 AM, Pieter Wuille via bitcoin-dev
Some things are not included yet, such as a testnet whose size runs ahead
of the main chain, and the inclusion of Gavin's more accurate sigop
checking after the
On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 2:15 PM, Mike Hearn he...@vinumeris.com wrote:
Hey Jorge,
He is not saying that. Whatever the reasons for centralization are, it
is obvious that increasing the size won't help.
It's not obvious. Quite possibly bigger blocks == more users == more nodes
and more
On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 7:15 AM, Mike Hearn via bitcoin-dev
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org wrote:
He is not saying that. Whatever the reasons for centralization are, it
is obvious that increasing the size won't help.
It's not obvious. Quite possibly bigger blocks == more users ==
Hey Jorge,
He is not saying that. Whatever the reasons for centralization are, it
is obvious that increasing the size won't help.
It's not obvious. Quite possibly bigger blocks == more users == more nodes
and more miners.
To repeat: it's not obvious to me at all that everything wrong with
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 07/31/2015 09:58 PM, Mike Hearn via bitcoin-dev wrote:
How more users or more nodes can bring more miners, or more
importantly, improve mining decentralization?
Because the bigger the ecosystem is the more interest there is in
taking
How more users or more nodes can bring more miners, or more importantly,
improve mining decentralization?
Because the bigger the ecosystem is the more interest there is in taking
part?
I mean, I guess I don't know how to answer your question. When Bitcoin was
new it had almost no users and
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Mike Hearn, I might be a nobody to you, but you know i talk with
skill, so let me tell this Friday...
On 07/31/2015 05:16 PM, Mike Hearn via bitcoin-dev wrote:
I agree with Gavin
You would, of course.
Bitcoin can support a large scale and it
On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 12:16 PM, Mike Hearn via bitcoin-dev
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org wrote:
Well, centralization of mining is already terrible. I see no reason why we
should encourage making it worse.
I see constant assertions that node count, mining centralisation, developers
I agree with Gavin - whilst it's great that a Blockstream employee has
finally made a realistic proposal (i.e. not let's all use Lightning) -
this BIP is virtually the same as keeping the 1mb cap.
Well, centralization of mining is already terrible. I see no reason why we
should encourage making
1) Unlike previous blocksize hardfork proposals, this uses median time
instead of block.nTime for activation. I like that more but my
preference is still using height for everything. But that discussion
is not specific to this proposal, so it's better if we discuss that
for all of them here:
I fully expect that new layers will someday allow us to facilitate higher
transaction volumes, though I'm concerned about the current state of the
network and the fact that there are no concrete timelines for the rollout
of aforementioned high volume networks.
As for reasoning behind why users
On Jul 30, 2015 6:20 PM, Gavin Andresen gavinandre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 10:25 AM, Pieter Wuille via bitcoin-dev
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org wrote:
Some things are not included yet, such as a testnet whose size runs
ahead of the main chain, and the inclusion of
42 matches
Mail list logo
