📅 Original date posted:2015-09-08
📝 Original message:Agreed. For this reason, the scaling BIPs which don't allow for easy gaming
such as BIP101, your proposal or Pieter's are preferable for their
predictability and simplicity. Changing the fundamental rules for Bitcoin
is supposed to be hard - why give this power up to a subsection of the
ecosystem in order to make it easier to change or game?
On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 9:13 AM, Adam Back <adam at cypherspace.org> wrote:
> The maximum block-size is one that can be filled at zero-cost by
> miners, and so allows some kinds of amplification of selfish-mining
> related attacks.
>
> Adam
>
>
> On 8 September 2015 at 13:28, Ivan Brightly via bitcoin-dev
> <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > This is true, but miners already control block size through soft caps.
> > Miners are fully capable of producing smaller blocks regardless of the
> max
> > block limit, with or without collusion. Arguably, there is no need to
> ever
> > reduce the max block size unless technology advances for some reason
> reverse
> > course - aka, WW3 takes a toll on the internet and the average bandwidth
> > available halves. The likelihood of significant technology contraction in
> > the near future seems rather unlikely and is more broadly problematic for
> > society than bitcoin specifically.
> >
> > The only reason for reducing the max block limit other than technology
> > availability is if you think that this is what will produce the fee
> market,
> > which is back to an economic discussion - not a technology scaling
> > discussion.
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 4:49 AM, Btc Drak via bitcoin-dev
> > <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> > but allow meaningful relief to transaction volume pressure in response
> >> > to true market demand
> >>
> >> If blocksize can only increase then it's like a market that only goes
> >> up which is unrealistic. Transaction will volume ebb and flow
> >> significantly. Some people have been looking at transaction volume
> >> charts over time and all they can see is an exponential curve which
> >> they think will go on forever, yet nothing goes up forever and it will
> >> go through significant trend cycles (like everything does). If you
> >> dont want to hurt the fee market, the blocksize has to be elastic and
> >> allow contraction as well as expansion.
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > bitcoin-dev mailing list
> > bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
> >
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150908/8c49c772/attachment-0001.html>;
Ivan Brightly [ARCHIVE] /
npub1hn…4p3n4
2023-06-07 17:39:49
in reply to nevent1q…kyc5
Author Public Key
npub1hn9vjtvdlnllrltesscgtnplu0ev2sreey03kjh3k07zmvd9zgus24p3n4Published at
2023-06-07 17:39:49Event JSON
{
"id": "3b330e5fbc4636732819064006b696e2d4fc76080950a8a9bb9cc71fb32a8b2b",
"pubkey": "bccac92d8dfcfff1fd79843085cc3fe3f2c54079c91f1b4af1b3fc2db1a51239",
"created_at": 1686159589,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"5db98b1bb8a695c5ded066d359dd1edd37b2315bd6a400566e7871f0b2f043bb",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"178e8c3982ca9d1ddde4bbd27d2159273e17cc34e8beed6052f6e20d67ff6c8d",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"ee0fa66772f633411e4432e251cfb15b1c0fe8cd8befd8b0d86eb302402a8b4a"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-09-08\n📝 Original message:Agreed. For this reason, the scaling BIPs which don't allow for easy gaming\nsuch as BIP101, your proposal or Pieter's are preferable for their\npredictability and simplicity. Changing the fundamental rules for Bitcoin\nis supposed to be hard - why give this power up to a subsection of the\necosystem in order to make it easier to change or game?\n\nOn Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 9:13 AM, Adam Back \u003cadam at cypherspace.org\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e The maximum block-size is one that can be filled at zero-cost by\n\u003e miners, and so allows some kinds of amplification of selfish-mining\n\u003e related attacks.\n\u003e\n\u003e Adam\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e On 8 September 2015 at 13:28, Ivan Brightly via bitcoin-dev\n\u003e \u003cbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e \u003e This is true, but miners already control block size through soft caps.\n\u003e \u003e Miners are fully capable of producing smaller blocks regardless of the\n\u003e max\n\u003e \u003e block limit, with or without collusion. Arguably, there is no need to\n\u003e ever\n\u003e \u003e reduce the max block size unless technology advances for some reason\n\u003e reverse\n\u003e \u003e course - aka, WW3 takes a toll on the internet and the average bandwidth\n\u003e \u003e available halves. The likelihood of significant technology contraction in\n\u003e \u003e the near future seems rather unlikely and is more broadly problematic for\n\u003e \u003e society than bitcoin specifically.\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e The only reason for reducing the max block limit other than technology\n\u003e \u003e availability is if you think that this is what will produce the fee\n\u003e market,\n\u003e \u003e which is back to an economic discussion - not a technology scaling\n\u003e \u003e discussion.\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 4:49 AM, Btc Drak via bitcoin-dev\n\u003e \u003e \u003cbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e \u003e\u003e\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e but allow meaningful relief to transaction volume pressure in response\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e to true market demand\n\u003e \u003e\u003e\n\u003e \u003e\u003e If blocksize can only increase then it's like a market that only goes\n\u003e \u003e\u003e up which is unrealistic. Transaction will volume ebb and flow\n\u003e \u003e\u003e significantly. Some people have been looking at transaction volume\n\u003e \u003e\u003e charts over time and all they can see is an exponential curve which\n\u003e \u003e\u003e they think will go on forever, yet nothing goes up forever and it will\n\u003e \u003e\u003e go through significant trend cycles (like everything does). If you\n\u003e \u003e\u003e dont want to hurt the fee market, the blocksize has to be elastic and\n\u003e \u003e\u003e allow contraction as well as expansion.\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e\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\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150908/8c49c772/attachment-0001.html\u003e",
"sig": "2efe5f495cf613eea62f215ce7d36a22602a489df794985e6c5c0054bc8f6b510724f527c8a00cfd1c4038e681334dc6bf8b36ccae9adb0f9294c100594847d2"
}