On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 10:23 PM, Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 9:59 AM, Mike Hearn via bitcoin-dev
>
>
> > Miners who don't validate have a habit of bleeding money: that's the
> > system working as designed.
>
> The infor
tl;dr
$100 worth of hardware and $1/mo of expenses, should be able to run a full
Bitcoin node until 2020 with BIP101-size blocks.
I got into Bitcoin in the summer of 2010. I'm not a cryptographer, up until
recently my profession has been as a server administrator or systems
engineer.
I'd li
I shouldn't have said unlimited, i should have said a greater blocksize
limit such as 8mb.
Anyways, why is that the assumption? If a miner can do so, and do so
profitably, isn't that just competition? Isn't that what we want? If a
miner can mine low transaction fees at a profit then don't they
> On Jul 29, 2015, at 8:41 PM, Ryan Butler via bitcoin-dev
> wrote:
>
> Does an unlimited blocksize imply the lack of a fee market? Isn't every
> miner able to set their minimum accepted fee or transaction acceptance
> algorithm?
>
Yes, miners can set this, and giving them more fine grain
btw the fact that mining is (or can be) anonymous also makes oligopoly
or cartel behaviour likely unstable. Miners can break ranks and
process transactions others wish to block, or with lower fees than a
cartel would like to charge, without detection.
Anonymous mining is a feature and helps ensur
On 29 July 2015 at 20:41, Ryan Butler via bitcoin-dev
wrote:
> Does an unlimited blocksize imply the lack of a fee market? Isn't every
> miner able to set their minimum accepted fee or transaction acceptance
> algorithm?
The assumption is that wont work because any miner can break ranks and
do s
I dont think people consider other blockchains as a competitive
threat. A PoW-blockchain is a largely singleton data structure for
security reasons (single highest hashrate), it is hard for an
alternative chain to bootstrap or provide meaningful security.
Secondly the world largely lacks expertise
Does an unlimited blocksize imply the lack of a fee market? Isn't every
miner able to set their minimum accepted fee or transaction acceptance
algorithm?
On Jul 29, 2015 5:54 PM, "s7r via bitcoin-dev" <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> We could care less about you selling your bitc
Cheapest way to send value? Is this what Bitcoin is trying to do? So
all of the smart contract, programmable money, consensus coding and
tremendous developer effort is bent to the consumer demand for cheaper
fees. Surely thou jests!
These other features can be replicated into any alternative blo
We could care less about you selling your bitcoins or moving to
something else.
What we care more is keeping bitcoin a successful project which offers
clear benefits to the world. I agree a fee market is good and needed,
and transactions shouldn't be free ever, but users should also be able
to tra
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Raystonn, I'm aware that you're addressing your question to Greg
Maxwell, however a point you keep stating as fact calls for reference:
On 07/30/2015 04:28 AM, Raystonn . via bitcoin-dev wrote:
[snip]
> How do you plan to address the bleeding of value
On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 10:38 PM, Eric Voskuil wrote:
> On 07/28/2015 02:58 AM, Jorge Timón wrote:
> Oh, I misunderstood your ask then. I don't have a preference on
> prioritizing VerifyTx vs VerifyHeader.
Ok, let's assume we want to expose verifyHeader first (which I think
will be easier).
>> w
Gregory, can you please speak to the following points. I would like a
better understanding of your positions.
1) Do you believe that Bitcoin's future is as a high-value settlement
network?
2) Do you believe we need an artificial limit to transaction rate, perhaps
implemented as a maximum bl
On 07/28/2015 02:58 AM, Jorge Timón wrote:
>> I haven't looked at any of these commits, but I'll make some time to at
>> least give a cursory review.
>
> Great. I mean, I wasn't asking about reviewing the commits themselves
> (which is also great if you do), but rather on answering the questions
>
When it comes to define thresholds for consensus fork activation there
are 3 options that I know of and each of them has at least a
disadvantage that the other 2 lack:
-Block.nTime: It's not monotonic
-median time: You cannot validate it without context (in contrast,
nTime is contained in the bloc
All of the properties you describe are also properties of many of the
alternative blockchains that currently exist. In this space, Bitcoin gives
up these advantages. Much like anywhere else where liquidity moves within a
system, value will move to the network of least friction. The reality ri
On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 7:56 PM, Owen via bitcoin-dev
wrote:
> On July 29, 2015 7:15:49 AM EDT, Mike Hearn via bitcoin-dev:
>>Consider this: the highest Bitcoin tx fees can possibly go is perhaps
>>a
>>little higher than what our competition charges. Too much higher than
>>that,
>>and people will
On July 29, 2015 7:15:49 AM EDT, Mike Hearn via bitcoin-dev:
>Consider this: the highest Bitcoin tx fees can possibly go is perhaps
>a
>little higher than what our competition charges. Too much higher than
>that,
>and people will just say, you know what I'll make a bank transfer.
>It's chea
On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 6:03 PM, Mike Hearn wrote:
>> It was _well_ understood that the users of Bitcoin would wish to
>> protect its decenteralization by limiting the size of the chain to keep it
>> verifyable on small devices.
>
> No it wasn't. That is something you invented yourself much l
On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 12:43 PM, Eric Lombrozo via bitcoin-dev
wrote:
> Erm…most miners just trust mining pool operators to validate blocks for
> them…and some of the biggest pools have been blatantly cutting corners. Yes,
> a few pools might have temporarily bled a little…but properly validating
> When a category of users would get priced out because of the fee market, they
> would be free to use any altcoin they want.
I believe that pretty well sums up where we’re headed if transaction rate is
artificially limited, whether that be by maximum block size limit or something
else. A fee
On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 10:23 PM, Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 9:59 AM, Mike Hearn via bitcoin-dev
>
>
> > Miners who don't validate have a habit of bleeding money: that's the
> > system working as designed.
>
> The infor
Eric, any plans to correct your article at
https://bitcoinmagazine.com/21377/settling-block-size-debate/?
From: Mike Hearn via bitcoin-dev
Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2015 4:15 AM
To: Eric Lombrozo
Cc: Bitcoin Dev
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Why Satoshi's temporary anti-spam measure
isn'ttempor
On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 9:59 AM, Mike Hearn via bitcoin-dev
wrote:
> I do love history lessons from people who weren't actually there.
I doubt the rest of us really enjoy hearing these "lessons" from from
you where you wildly distort history to reflect your views.
> Satoshi explicitly envisioned
I am disappointed that you did not understand my point of view. Let me
rephrase it for you,
People tipping, buying 0.99$ products and gamblers that need Bitcoin
transactions *more* than the rest of the people will afford the fees that
establish the equilibrium between demand and supply of Bitco
>
> I believe the idea is to replace openSSL with
> https://github.com/bitcoin/secp256k1
Yes, I know. I said "other uses". For example RPC SSL and BIP 70.
___
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.o
I believe the idea is to replace openSSL with
https://github.com/bitcoin/secp256k1 that Pieter and Greg spent quite
some time rigorously testing and have at this point better confidence
in than *SSL libraries.
I think the lessons learned from it as concluded by Pieter and Greg
are that openSSL and
>
> This solved the vulnerability, and opens the door to using non-OpenSSL
> signature verification in the near future.
Great work!
It also means the remaining usages of OpenSSL can be safely replaced with
something like LibreSSL or (perhaps better) BoringSSL.
___
Hello,
I have been reading an argument saying that paying higher fees would scare
Bitcoin users and they would stop using it, preferring bank transfers or other
payment methods. This does not make sense for me. If some users leave, then
demand for bitcoin transactions goes down and so do the fe
On Wednesday 29. July 2015 05.03.45 Eric Lombrozo via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> Point is…processing blocks requires computational resources that someone
> needs to put up. Unless the people who are putting up these resources are
> properly incentivized to continue doing it, the network will fail.
This
> On Jul 29, 2015, at 4:15 AM, Mike Hearn wrote:
>
> Irrelevant what term was used - and as brilliant as Satoshi might have been
> at some things, he obviously got this one wrong.
>
> I don't think it's obvious. You may disagree, but don't pretend any of this
> stuff is obvious.
>
> Consider
On Wednesday 29. July 2015 03.43.50 Eric Lombrozo via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> > > Enter a “temporary” anti-spam measure - a one megabyte block size limit.
> > The one megabyte limit was nothing to do with anti spam. It was a quick
> > kludge to try and avoid the user experience degrading significantl
On Tuesday 28. July 2015 19.40.21 Eric Lombrozo via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> 1) A fee market never really got created, we don’t really know how
> transaction fees would work in practice.
>
> The only way to see how fees would work in practice is to have scarcity.
This skips over the question why you
>
> Irrelevant what term was used - and as brilliant as Satoshi might have
> been at some things, he obviously got this one wrong.
>
I don't think it's obvious. You may disagree, but don't pretend any of this
stuff is obvious.
Consider this: the highest Bitcoin tx fees can possibly go is perhaps
> On Jul 29, 2015, at 2:59 AM, Mike Hearn wrote:
>
> I do love history lessons from people who weren't actually there.
>
> Let me correct your misconceptions.
>
>
> Initially there was no block size limit - it was thought that the fee market
> would naturally develop and would impose economi
I do love history lessons from people who weren't actually there.
Let me correct your misconceptions.
Initially there was no block size limit - it was thought that the fee
> market would naturally develop and would impose economic constraints on
> growth.
The term "fee market" was never used b
36 matches
Mail list logo
