Re: [Bitcoin-development] Block Size Increase Requirements

On May 31, 2015 5:08 PM, "Gavin Andresen" wrote: > > On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 10:59 AM, Jorge Timón wrote: >> >> Whatever...let's use the current subsidies, the same argument applies, it's just 20 + 25 = 45 btc per block for miner B vs 27 btc for miner B. >> Miner B would still go out of business,

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Block Size Increase Requirements

On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 10:59 AM, Jorge Timón wrote: > Whatever...let's use the current subsidies, the same argument applies, > it's just 20 + 25 = 45 btc per block for miner B vs 27 btc for miner B. > Miner B would still go out of business, bigger blocks still mean more > mining and validation c

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Block Size Increase Requirements

Whatever...let's use the current subsidies, the same argument applies, it's just 20 + 25 = 45 btc per block for miner B vs 27 btc for miner B. Miner B would still go out of business, bigger blocks still mean more mining and validation centralization. The question is how far I we willing to go with

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Block Size Increase Requirements

On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 10:46 AM, Jorge Timón wrote: > Here's a thought experiment: > > Subsidy is gone, all the block reward comes from fees. > I wrote about long-term hypotheticals and why I think it is a big mistake to waste time worrying about them here: http://gavinandresen.ninja/when-the

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Block Size Increase Requirements

On May 30, 2015 10:38 PM, "Gavin Andresen" wrote: > > Mining is a competitive business, the marginal miner will ALWAYS be going out of business. > > That is completely independent of the block size, block subsidy, or transaction fees. No, the later determines who can be profitable. Here's a thoug

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Block Size Increase Requirements

On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 3:05 AM, Peter Todd wrote: > Yeah, I'm pretty surprised myself that Gavin never accepted the > compromises offered by others in this space for a slow growth solution > What compromise? I haven't seen a specific proposal that could be turned into a pull request. > Some

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Block Size Increase Requirements

On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 07:42:16AM +0800, Chun Wang wrote: > Hello. I am from F2Pool. We are currently mining the biggest blocks on > the network. So far top 100 biggest bitcoin blocks are all from us. We > do support bigger blocks and sooner rather than later. But we cannot > handle 20 MB blocks r

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Block Size Increase Requirements

Linear growth is indeed the 'simplest' model for growth so removes concerns of complexity using such a growth model. Seems like it might be a safe compromise between exponential growth, zero growth and buys some time to observe the longer term scale network behaviour. A simple linear growth 'hard

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Block Size Increase Requirements

> > Stop trying to dictate block growth limits. Block size will be determined > by competition between miners and availability of transactions, not through > hard-coded limits. > Do you even game theory, bro? It doesn't work that way. Mike Hearn described the problem in this article: https://medi

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Block Size Increase Requirements

> Why 20 MB? Do you anticipate 20x transaction count growth in 2016? > > Do you anticipate linear growth? > It's safe to say that absolutely nobody can predict the actual growth with any degree of an accuracy. I believe that linear growth compares very favorably to other alternatives: 1. Exponent

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Block Size Increase Requirements

Stop trying to dictate block growth limits.  Block size will be determined by competition between miners and availability of transactions, not through hard-coded limits.  I see now the temporary 1MB limit was a mistake.  It should have gone in as a dynamic limit that scales with average block size.

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Block Size Increase Requirements

> Why 20 MB? Do you anticipate 20x transaction count growth in 2016? Do you anticipate linear growth? > On May 30, 2015, at 6:05 PM, Alex Mizrahi wrote: > > >> Why 2 MB ? > > Why 20 MB? Do you anticipate 20x transaction count growth in 2016? > > Why not grow it by 1 MB per year? > This is

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Block Size Increase Requirements

> Why 2 MB ? > Why 20 MB? Do you anticipate 20x transaction count growth in 2016? Why not grow it by 1 MB per year? This is a safer option, I don't think that anybody claims that 2 MB blocks will be a problem. And in 10 years when we get to 10 MB we'll get more evidence as to whether network can

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Block Size Increase Requirements

On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 3:32 PM, Matt Corallo wrote: > If, for example, the majority of miners are in China (they are), and > there is really poor connectivity in and out of China (there is) and a > miner naively optimizes for profit, they will create blocks which are > large and take a while to

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Block Size Increase Requirements

On 05/29/15 23:48, Gavin Andresen wrote: > On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 7:25 PM, Matt Corallo > wrote: > > Sadly, this is very far from the whole story. The issue of miners > optimizing for returns has been discussed several times during this > discussion

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Block Size Increase Requirements

On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 9:57 PM, Gavin Andresen wrote: > On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 7:42 PM, Chun Wang <1240...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hello. I am from F2Pool. We are currently mining the biggest blocks on >> the network. > > > Thanks for giving your opinion! > > > >> Bad miners could attack us and

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Block Size Increase Requirements

On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 7:42 PM, Chun Wang <1240...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hello. I am from F2Pool. We are currently mining the biggest blocks on > the network. Thanks for giving your opinion! > Bad miners could attack us and the network with artificial > big blocks. How? I ran some simulatio

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Block Size Increase Requirements

Hello. I am from F2Pool. We are currently mining the biggest blocks on the network. So far top 100 biggest bitcoin blocks are all from us. We do support bigger blocks and sooner rather than later. But we cannot handle 20 MB blocks right now. I know most blocks would not be 20 MB over night. But onl

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Block Size Increase Requirements

On 05/29/15 22:36, Gavin Andresen wrote: > Matt brought this up on Twitter, I have no idea why I didn't respond > weeks ago (busy writing blog posts, probably): > > On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 6:02 PM, Matt Corallo > wrote: > > > > * Though there are many pro

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Block Size Increase Requirements

Matt brought this up on Twitter, I have no idea why I didn't respond weeks ago (busy writing blog posts, probably): On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 6:02 PM, Matt Corallo wrote: > > > * Though there are many proposals floating around which could > significantly decrease block propagation latency, none of

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Block Size Increase Requirements

On Sat, May 16, 2015 at 5:39 AM, Stephen wrote: > I think this could be mitigated by counting confirmations differently. We > should think of confirmations as only coming from blocks following the > miners' more strict rule set. So if a merchant were to see payment for the > first time in a block

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Block Size Increase Requirements

On Sat, May 9, 2015 at 4:08 AM, Peter Todd wrote: > > I wonder if having a "miner" flag would be good for the network. > > Makes it trivial to find miners and DoS attack them - a huge risk to the > network as a whole, as well as the miners. > To mitigate against this, two chaintips could be trac

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Block Size Increase Requirements

Comments in line: > On May 8, 2015, at 11:08 PM, Peter Todd wrote: > > Makes it trivial to find miners and DoS attack them - a huge risk to the > network as a whole, as well as the miners. > > Right now pools already get DoSed all the time through their work > submission systems; getting DoS at

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Block Size Increase Requirements

On Fri, May 08, 2015 at 08:47:52PM +0100, Tier Nolan wrote: > On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 5:37 PM, Peter Todd wrote: > > > The soft-limit is there miners themselves produce smaller blocks; the > > soft-limit does not prevent other miners from producing larger blocks. > > > > I wonder if having a "min

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Block Size Increase Requirements

On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 5:37 PM, Peter Todd wrote: > The soft-limit is there miners themselves produce smaller blocks; the > soft-limit does not prevent other miners from producing larger blocks. > I wonder if having a "miner" flag would be good for the network. Clients for general users and mer

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Block Size Increase Requirements

On Fri, May 08, 2015 at 12:03:04PM +0200, Mike Hearn wrote: > > > > * Though there are many proposals floating around which could > > significantly decrease block propagation latency, none of them are > > implemented today. > > > With a 20mb cap, miners still have the option of the soft limit.

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Block Size Increase Requirements

> > * Though there are many proposals floating around which could > significantly decrease block propagation latency, none of them are > implemented today. With a 20mb cap, miners still have the option of the soft limit. I would actually be quite surprised if there were no point along the road

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Block Size Increase Requirements

--[remove this line and above]-- On Thu, 7 May 2015, Gregory Maxwell wrote: > Date: Thu, 7 May 2015 00:37:54 + > From: Gregory Maxwell > To: Matt Corallo > Cc: Bitcoin Dev > Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Block Size Increase > > Thanks Matt; I was actually really confused by this sudde

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Block Size Increase Requirements

On Thu, May 07, 2015 at 10:02:09PM +, Matt Corallo wrote: > OK, so lets do that. I've seen a lot of "I'm not entirely comfortable > with committing to this right now, but think we should eventually", but > not much "I'd be comfortable with committing to this when I see X". In > the interest of

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Block Size Increase Requirements

Hi Matt, I agree that starting discussion on how to approach this problem is necessary and it's difficult taking positions without details on what is being discussed. A simple hard 20-megabyte increase will likely create perverse incentives, perhaps a method can exist with some safe transition. I