📅 Original date posted:2015-08-13
📝 Original message:A concern I have is about security (hash rate) as a function of block size.
I am assuming that hash rate is correlated with revenue from mining.
Total revenue from fees as a function of block size should be a curve. On
one extreme of the curve, if blocks are too big, fee revenue tends towards
0 as there is no competition for block space. At the other extreme, if
blocks are too small, fee revenue is limited only to what the most valuable
use case(s) can afford. Somewhere in the middle there should be a sweet
spot where fee revenue is maximised. It's not a static curve though, it
should change as demand for block space changes.
Failing to scale the block size as demand grows might be forfeiting
potential miner revenue and hence security.
(I don't think that should be a primary concern though since
decentralisation should come first, but I'm just pointing it out as a
secondary concern).
On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 7:59 PM, Jorge Timón <
bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150813/fc22e19a/attachment.html>;
Ashley Holman [ARCHIVE] /
npub14g…u4vq6
2023-06-07 17:34:47
in reply to nevent1q…pwep
Author Public Key
npub14gv4tc4w0zkzyrfa5u2gvsajqlf3cgevux3xth46ukfrnqlcl8xqru4vq6Published at
2023-06-07 17:34:47Event JSON
{
"id": "ed88ad0a809998f5b154127387d25769d9e834343ed3352ffdc2743e92fbe90a",
"pubkey": "aa1955e2ae78ac220d3da7148643b207d31c232ce1a265debae5923983f8f9cc",
"created_at": 1686159287,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"84e9713c14b2ae748ca6ac2b1f01ce16f0b65e64045ea0382a18c035646dab80",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"dbcc0db5c6ea11b5b6f8d116df68dbd532cfafa098c38b7729c81b33fdb6a3ec",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"d396d1d1039131d747d4a4794633e903ca371ae2156dfc8f411168aefa64d6d6"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-08-13\n📝 Original message:A concern I have is about security (hash rate) as a function of block size.\n\nI am assuming that hash rate is correlated with revenue from mining.\n\nTotal revenue from fees as a function of block size should be a curve. On\none extreme of the curve, if blocks are too big, fee revenue tends towards\n0 as there is no competition for block space. At the other extreme, if\nblocks are too small, fee revenue is limited only to what the most valuable\nuse case(s) can afford. Somewhere in the middle there should be a sweet\nspot where fee revenue is maximised. It's not a static curve though, it\nshould change as demand for block space changes.\n\nFailing to scale the block size as demand grows might be forfeiting\npotential miner revenue and hence security.\n\n(I don't think that should be a primary concern though since\ndecentralisation should come first, but I'm just pointing it out as a\nsecondary concern).\n\nOn Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 7:59 PM, Jorge Timón \u003c\nbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e I believe all concerns I've read can be classified in the following groups:\n\u003e\n\u003e \u003e 1) Potential indirect consequence of rising fees.\n\u003e\n\u003e - Lowest fee transactions (currently free transactions) will become\n\u003e more unreliable.\n\u003e - People will migrate to competing systems (PoW altcoins) with lower fees.\n\u003e\n\u003e \u003e 2) Software problem independent of a concrete block size that needs to\n\u003e \u003e be solved anyway, often specific to Bitcoin Core (ie other\n\u003e \u003e implementations, say libbitcoin may not necessarily share these\n\u003e \u003e problems).\n\u003e\n\u003e - Bitcoin Core's mempool is unbounded in size and can make the program\n\u003e crash by using too much memory.\n\u003e - There's no good way to increase the fee of a transaction that is\n\u003e taking too long to be mined without the \"double spending\" transaction\n\u003e with the higher fee being blocked by most nodes which follow Bitcoin\n\u003e Core's default policy for conflicting spends replacements (aka \"first\n\u003e seen\" replacement policy).\n\u003e\n\u003e I have started with the 3 concerns that I read more often, but please\n\u003e suggest more concerns for these categories and suggest other\n\u003e categories if you think there's more.\n\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\u003e\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150813/fc22e19a/attachment.html\u003e",
"sig": "6e0f09ce466af4f3f9556df9168be1bf99ea4cee18ad678accfe2d5748a5a4e32b10bc60caea1a5b5a7ed488089217adcac13042d5aab1a9eea6b81297721f7c"
}