📅 Original date posted:2015-08-13
📝 Original message:-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Geir,
In the scenario below, you argue that the current 1MB limit would lead
to "constantly full" blocks. If the limit is increased to say 1.6GB
then a government or banking group may choose to utilize 1.5GB of the
capacity of each block (and pay fees or not) for their settlement
network. Then how did upping the blocksize remedy anything? Or is this
use-case not plausible?
I would like to ask you, or anyone on the list: when we say that
mining secures the network, what does that mean?
On 08/14/2015 05:01 AM, Geir Harald Hansen via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> 3) A few more people begin using bitcoin. Bitcoin buckles and
> dies.
>
> - Something happens a few months from now causing an influx of new
> users and more transactions. - Blocks are constantly full. - A
> backlog of transactions keeps growing indefinitely. - At first
> people say "bitcoin is slow". After a while they say "bitcoin
> doesn't work". - Changing the hard limit on block size requires a
> fork and takes too long. - As bitcoin no longer works people stop
> using it. - Bitcoin lives out the last of its days in the
> backwaters of the internet with only 5 users. They keep telling
> people "we increased the block size now". Unfortunately noone is
> listening anymore. - People laugh at you and say "I told you that
> buttcoin thing was doomed to fail. After all it wasn't real
> money."
>
> If the hard limit had been increased earlier then mining pools
> would have been able to react quickly by upping their own soft
> limit. But this was not the case and so ended Bitcoin.
>
> So in summary:
>
> By increasing the block size limit you run the risk of: - The
> transaction fee market takes a little longer to develop. By not
> increasing the limit you run the risk of: - Bitcoin dies. The end.
>
> Transaction fees should not be the main topic of this discussion,
> and probably not even a part of it at all. That seems outright
> irresponsible to me.
>
> Regards, Geir H. Hansen, Bitminter mining pool
>
> On 12.08.2015 11:59, Jorge Timón via bitcoin-dev wrote:
>> I believe all concerns I've read can be classified in the
>> following groups:
>>
>>> 1) Potential indirect consequence of rising fees.
>>
>> - Lowest fee transactions (currently free transactions) will
>> become more unreliable. - People will migrate to competing
>> systems (PoW altcoins) with lower fees.
>>
>>> 2) Software problem independent of a concrete block size that
>>> needs to be solved anyway, often specific to Bitcoin Core (ie
>>> other implementations, say libbitcoin may not necessarily share
>>> these problems).
>>
>> - Bitcoin Core's mempool is unbounded in size and can make the
>> program crash by using too much memory. - There's no good way to
>> increase the fee of a transaction that is taking too long to be
>> mined without the "double spending" transaction with the higher
>> fee being blocked by most nodes which follow Bitcoin Core's
>> default policy for conflicting spends replacements (aka "first
>> seen" replacement policy).
>>
>> I have started with the 3 concerns that I read more often, but
>> please suggest more concerns for these categories and suggest
>> other categories if you think there's more.
>> _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev
>> mailing list bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>>
>
> _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing
> list bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJVzVHWAAoJEGwAhlQc8H1myaoH+QFo+eTqPqMps/h/Lt5P4Ker
UIyCbouatdrRnKqJlpa+dy70+nK+nkz6fizXLC8fuWFDLPQ2uk1cUnp7FPcJ+f6L
LdGiUktcF/osbA5DW/Xt1DQnClnfbR04oH3+l5ouwhTG2FL8018RQKTAZXYaQafE
/GUzXBZt+dxpENE2ZE0YDORcm62cysFB8KiqS7NmrNC3sig/Bnw0k8x8y745LcSO
j/icLJ/zlSVhtceb8AnSg5bC2xhKXrTsGQBfr4foDh78n0+xcbEQO/6xc29rydeB
l8VwzqCwyFZScM/4lhgYHgEB2KE3MecGNy0vh7jKVqh9lQUMlWtpHRy/Nony5mA=
=MEzL
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Venzen Khaosan [ARCHIVE] /
npub1uu…r4rpf
2023-06-07 17:34:48
in reply to nevent1q…harh
Author Public Key
npub1uu2fve28mkg68uequseraz8gee7qg64733lr9r2g4c0xs5pmqnuslr4rpfPublished at
2023-06-07 17:34:48Event JSON
{
"id": "dd74bb62469907a66f981bf3b5c82bee98ce2e1b16fd3dac2827312ba982b400",
"pubkey": "e714966547dd91a3f320e4323e88e8ce7c046abe8c7e328d48ae1e68503b04f9",
"created_at": 1686159288,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"84e9713c14b2ae748ca6ac2b1f01ce16f0b65e64045ea0382a18c035646dab80",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"6f9087ab61dd5f3d35ccacbe7fde2f98550ac30b2c4252e3958c388a4cf48954",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"b04dd51d5d295382c4c68bc7c8c13b04c80b4467ef06288a623121fbb7c9cfd3"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-08-13\n📝 Original message:-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----\nHash: SHA1\n\nGeir,\n\nIn the scenario below, you argue that the current 1MB limit would lead\nto \"constantly full\" blocks. If the limit is increased to say 1.6GB\nthen a government or banking group may choose to utilize 1.5GB of the\ncapacity of each block (and pay fees or not) for their settlement\nnetwork. Then how did upping the blocksize remedy anything? Or is this\nuse-case not plausible?\n\nI would like to ask you, or anyone on the list: when we say that\nmining secures the network, what does that mean?\n\n\n\nOn 08/14/2015 05:01 AM, Geir Harald Hansen via bitcoin-dev wrote:\n\u003e 3) A few more people begin using bitcoin. Bitcoin buckles and\n\u003e dies.\n\u003e \n\u003e - Something happens a few months from now causing an influx of new\n\u003e users and more transactions. - Blocks are constantly full. - A\n\u003e backlog of transactions keeps growing indefinitely. - At first\n\u003e people say \"bitcoin is slow\". After a while they say \"bitcoin \n\u003e doesn't work\". - Changing the hard limit on block size requires a\n\u003e fork and takes too long. - As bitcoin no longer works people stop\n\u003e using it. - Bitcoin lives out the last of its days in the\n\u003e backwaters of the internet with only 5 users. They keep telling\n\u003e people \"we increased the block size now\". Unfortunately noone is\n\u003e listening anymore. - People laugh at you and say \"I told you that\n\u003e buttcoin thing was doomed to fail. After all it wasn't real\n\u003e money.\"\n\u003e \n\u003e If the hard limit had been increased earlier then mining pools\n\u003e would have been able to react quickly by upping their own soft\n\u003e limit. But this was not the case and so ended Bitcoin.\n\u003e \n\u003e So in summary:\n\u003e \n\u003e By increasing the block size limit you run the risk of: - The\n\u003e transaction fee market takes a little longer to develop. By not\n\u003e increasing the limit you run the risk of: - Bitcoin dies. The end.\n\u003e \n\u003e Transaction fees should not be the main topic of this discussion,\n\u003e and probably not even a part of it at all. That seems outright\n\u003e irresponsible to me.\n\u003e \n\u003e Regards, Geir H. Hansen, Bitminter mining pool\n\u003e \n\u003e On 12.08.2015 11:59, Jorge Timón via bitcoin-dev wrote:\n\u003e\u003e I believe all concerns I've read can be classified in the\n\u003e\u003e following groups:\n\u003e\u003e \n\u003e\u003e\u003e 1) Potential indirect consequence of rising fees.\n\u003e\u003e \n\u003e\u003e - Lowest fee transactions (currently free transactions) will\n\u003e\u003e become more unreliable. - People will migrate to competing\n\u003e\u003e systems (PoW altcoins) with lower fees.\n\u003e\u003e \n\u003e\u003e\u003e 2) Software problem independent of a concrete block size that\n\u003e\u003e\u003e needs to be solved anyway, often specific to Bitcoin Core (ie\n\u003e\u003e\u003e other implementations, say libbitcoin may not necessarily share\n\u003e\u003e\u003e these problems).\n\u003e\u003e \n\u003e\u003e - Bitcoin Core's mempool is unbounded in size and can make the\n\u003e\u003e program crash by using too much memory. - There's no good way to\n\u003e\u003e increase the fee of a transaction that is taking too long to be\n\u003e\u003e mined without the \"double spending\" transaction with the higher\n\u003e\u003e fee being blocked by most nodes which follow Bitcoin Core's\n\u003e\u003e default policy for conflicting spends replacements (aka \"first \n\u003e\u003e seen\" replacement policy).\n\u003e\u003e \n\u003e\u003e I have started with the 3 concerns that I read more often, but\n\u003e\u003e please suggest more concerns for these categories and suggest\n\u003e\u003e other categories if you think there's more. \n\u003e\u003e _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev\n\u003e\u003e mailing list bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org \n\u003e\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\u003e\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing\n\u003e list bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org \n\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\u003e \n-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----\nVersion: GnuPG v1\n\niQEcBAEBAgAGBQJVzVHWAAoJEGwAhlQc8H1myaoH+QFo+eTqPqMps/h/Lt5P4Ker\nUIyCbouatdrRnKqJlpa+dy70+nK+nkz6fizXLC8fuWFDLPQ2uk1cUnp7FPcJ+f6L\nLdGiUktcF/osbA5DW/Xt1DQnClnfbR04oH3+l5ouwhTG2FL8018RQKTAZXYaQafE\n/GUzXBZt+dxpENE2ZE0YDORcm62cysFB8KiqS7NmrNC3sig/Bnw0k8x8y745LcSO\nj/icLJ/zlSVhtceb8AnSg5bC2xhKXrTsGQBfr4foDh78n0+xcbEQO/6xc29rydeB\nl8VwzqCwyFZScM/4lhgYHgEB2KE3MecGNy0vh7jKVqh9lQUMlWtpHRy/Nony5mA=\n=MEzL\n-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----",
"sig": "2640551d78c6aa0f1fbaa843ab9c86baa668091559386d94c7b9f155c2d2ba13cf33dd76df1a12f4364e1d102b3c6e2dea5e6abd325608522ec1354de6aadcc3"
}