📅 Original date posted:2015-08-07
📝 Original message:Mark,
It took you 3 minutes to respond to my e-mail. And I responded to you 4
minutes later. If you had responded to me in 10 minutes, I would be of out
the office and we wouldn't have this dialogue. So 5 minutes is a lot of
time.
Obviously this is not a technical response to the technical issues you
argue. But "minutes" is a time scale we humans use to measure time very
often.
:)
On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 6:27 PM, Mark Friedenbach <mark at friedenbach.org>
wrote:
> Because halving the block interval comes with costs to SPV proofs (which
> double the number of headers) and mining centralization (doubles the
> selfish mining effect of latency) for the questionable benefit of a block
> expectation time that is still measured in minutes, not seconds.
>
> Doubling the block size is safer than halving the block interval, for the
> same effect in aggregate transactions per second.
>
> On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 2:18 PM, Sergio Demian Lerner via bitcoin-dev <
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
>> What would you do?
>>
>> a. Double the block size
>> b. Reduce the block rate to a half (average 5 minute blocks)
>>
>> Suppose this is a one time hard fork. There no drastic technical problems
>> with any of them: "SPV" mining and the relay network has shown that block
>> propagation is not an issue for such as small change. Mining centralization
>> won't radically change for a 2x adjustment.
>>
>> So what would be best for Bitcoin?
>>
>> I suspect some (if not most of you) would choose b. Because reducing the
>> block interval saves us real time. Waiting 30 minutes for a 3-block
>> confirmation is... such a long time! Time that we value. Time that
>> sometimes we waste waiting. Time that makes a difference for us. Doubling
>> the block size does not change the user perception of Bitcoin in any way.
>>
>> Then why most discussions go around doubling the block size?
>>
>> Each change require less than 20 lines of code (*) in the reference code,
>> and minimum change in other wallets.
>>
>> Currently there is no idle mining hardware for hire, so the security of
>> six 10-minute block confirmation is equivalent to the security of six
>> 5-minute block confirmations, as described in Satoshi's paper (if there
>> were 51% spare mining hardware for hire, then obviously hiring that
>> hardware for 30 minutes would cost less than hiring it for 1 hour).
>>
>> Why we discuss a 2x block size increase and not a 1/2 block interval
>> reduction? Aren't we Bitcoin users after all?
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Sergio.
>>
>> (*) b requires increasing the transaction version number, to support the
>> old nLockTime rate.
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20150807/7ed74a86/attachment-0001.html>;
Sergio Demian Lerner [ARCHIVE] /
npub1fv…3vq7f
2023-06-07 15:46:16
in reply to nevent1q…dzq8
Author Public Key
npub1fvuxqdqg7klqqgy3yy8gdxjv4phu92sll5y8zqm2qe5qdrhxymhqf3vq7fPublished at
2023-06-07 15:46:16Event JSON
{
"id": "204087fdb8f8ee3bd071c06ec99fdbd6ad4b8af0225b299d1a39fa4c7e445c75",
"pubkey": "4b38603408f5be002091210e869a4ca86fc2aa1ffd0871036a0668068ee626ee",
"created_at": 1686152776,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"82fc211df219167c45c4f9e69a80d3141b5a52b634c5bb5ed1fc08722ad342cd",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"e3f09b6f89473e8689d0c1415a313db8854b1c124c4c4e3a99f0dbcdcb0e78fb",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"1c61d995949cbfaf14f767784e166bde865c7b8783d7aa3bf0a1d014b70c0069"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-08-07\n📝 Original message:Mark,\nIt took you 3 minutes to respond to my e-mail. And I responded to you 4\nminutes later. If you had responded to me in 10 minutes, I would be of out\nthe office and we wouldn't have this dialogue. So 5 minutes is a lot of\ntime.\n\nObviously this is not a technical response to the technical issues you\nargue. But \"minutes\" is a time scale we humans use to measure time very\noften.\n\n:)\n\n\n\n\nOn Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 6:27 PM, Mark Friedenbach \u003cmark at friedenbach.org\u003e\nwrote:\n\n\u003e Because halving the block interval comes with costs to SPV proofs (which\n\u003e double the number of headers) and mining centralization (doubles the\n\u003e selfish mining effect of latency) for the questionable benefit of a block\n\u003e expectation time that is still measured in minutes, not seconds.\n\u003e\n\u003e Doubling the block size is safer than halving the block interval, for the\n\u003e same effect in aggregate transactions per second.\n\u003e\n\u003e On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 2:18 PM, Sergio Demian Lerner via bitcoin-dev \u003c\n\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\n\u003e\u003e What would you do?\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e a. Double the block size\n\u003e\u003e b. Reduce the block rate to a half (average 5 minute blocks)\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e Suppose this is a one time hard fork. There no drastic technical problems\n\u003e\u003e with any of them: \"SPV\" mining and the relay network has shown that block\n\u003e\u003e propagation is not an issue for such as small change. Mining centralization\n\u003e\u003e won't radically change for a 2x adjustment.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e So what would be best for Bitcoin?\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e I suspect some (if not most of you) would choose b. Because reducing the\n\u003e\u003e block interval saves us real time. Waiting 30 minutes for a 3-block\n\u003e\u003e confirmation is... such a long time! Time that we value. Time that\n\u003e\u003e sometimes we waste waiting. Time that makes a difference for us. Doubling\n\u003e\u003e the block size does not change the user perception of Bitcoin in any way.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e Then why most discussions go around doubling the block size?\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e Each change require less than 20 lines of code (*) in the reference code,\n\u003e\u003e and minimum change in other wallets.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e Currently there is no idle mining hardware for hire, so the security of\n\u003e\u003e six 10-minute block confirmation is equivalent to the security of six\n\u003e\u003e 5-minute block confirmations, as described in Satoshi's paper (if there\n\u003e\u003e were 51% spare mining hardware for hire, then obviously hiring that\n\u003e\u003e hardware for 30 minutes would cost less than hiring it for 1 hour).\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e Why we discuss a 2x block size increase and not a 1/2 block interval\n\u003e\u003e reduction? Aren't we Bitcoin users after all?\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e Best regards,\n\u003e\u003e Sergio.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e (*) b requires increasing the transaction version number, to support the\n\u003e\u003e old nLockTime rate.\n\u003e\u003e\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\u003e\n\u003e\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150807/7ed74a86/attachment-0001.html\u003e",
"sig": "a24532e56b426d54f13a7561f4bf6df2701a7b62491c05c9f77c32dc6ee226232a0388afbaca5a13523f007ae4832178450215a8e41b72ee34c10143a6ab0772"
}