Permanently keeping the 1MB (anti-spam) restriction is a great idea ... - page 19.

grau

hero member

Activity: 836

Merit: 1030

bits of proof

Quote from: MrTeal on February 05, 2015, 11:36:32 AM

I don't think he's saying that miners won't mine at all, just that they won't mine no-fee transactions.

A rational miner mines all non-zero fee transactions he sees until the block is full, since it has virtually no cost to include one. If he would not include any, he would leave it on the table for an other miner.

Imposing lower limit to fee could only be effective if miner build a cartel for that, and this is not the way of regulation I favor.

grau

hero member

Activity: 836

Merit: 1030

bits of proof

Bitcoins current inflation rate is 9.98 % that will drop to 4.26% with block 420000, expected on 29th July 2016.

Current inflation hardly covers the cost of current mining infrastructure, as a consequence we see difficulty stalling since several adjustment cycles.

This means some combination of following needs to happen to sustain security level past block 420000 at current level.

a) Bitcoin purchasing power increases at least 2.32 fold, means to more than 506 USD
b) Transaction fees have to supply 17.14 BTC per block

We all hope that the actual outcome will be more of a) than of b)

a) is a bet
b) implies transaction fees of ca. 0.005 BTC with fully packed 1MB blocks or 0.0003 BTC fees with fully packed 20MB blocks.

Note that above would only sustain current security level.

MrTeal

legendary

Activity: 1274

Merit: 1004

Quote from: grau on February 05, 2015, 11:30:37 AM

Quote from: Nancarrow on February 05, 2015, 11:04:10 AM

Quote from: grau on February 05, 2015, 10:30:48 AM

What else would make people pay a fee? I do not think alturism would pay for an infrastructure of 300 mio USD and increasing.

What else, is that the miners don't mine if it's not profitable.

Miners not mining does not force people to pay fee. Difficulty would decrease and transactions would confirm again with less miner.
Most would not even notice.

Some would see that security decreases, but will that make them pay more ? Not neccesarily, since their security preference is different.
Some might think it is still sufficient and continue to free ride, and if no longer, then leave for a better chain.

Again, this is a typical "the tragedy of the commons" scenario.

I don't think he's saying that miners won't mine at all, just that they won't mine no-fee transactions. Already with 1MB blocks, most pools limit the number of no-fee transactions. There is a cost to including a transaction in a block for a miner, and there's no economic incentive to do so without fees. No pool operator in their right mind would allow 20MB worth of no-fee transactions into their blocks; that doesn't mean they won't include every TX with a fee large enough to justify its inclusion.

grau

hero member

Activity: 836

Merit: 1030

bits of proof

Quote from: Nancarrow on February 05, 2015, 11:04:10 AM

Quote from: grau on February 05, 2015, 10:30:48 AM

What else would make people pay a fee? I do not think alturism would pay for an infrastructure of 300 mio USD and increasing.

What else, is that the miners don't mine if it's not profitable.

Miners not mining does not force people to pay fee. Difficulty would decrease and transactions would confirm again with less miner.
Most would not even notice.

Some would see that security decreases, but will that make them pay more ? Not neccesarily, since their security preference is different.
Some might think it is still sufficient and continue to free ride, and if no longer, then leave for a better chain.

Again, this is a typical "the tragedy of the commons" scenario.

homo homini lupus

member

Activity: 84

Merit: 10

Quote from: Nancarrow on February 05, 2015, 11:19:49 AM

Quote from: homo homini lupus on February 05, 2015, 11:16:02 AM

before you reach that limit you'll upgrade to 50MB and quantitative ease another 10 million btc into existance to cover miners - that's how it'll end up. (not really because people won't even use the 20MB version)

What plausible reasons can you give for either of those assertions?

Why *wouldn't* people use the 20MB version?

Why *would* the network majority agree to create another 10 million BTC?

-you propose to raise the limit without an immediate need now - you'll do it again (what else)

- why they wouldn't use it has been explained already earlier

- the majority will have to agree on that later because mining becomes unprofitable once the inflation fades out - especially if not the number txs actually do occure what you project (in case your fortune telling skills fail, which they will)

Nancarrow

hero member

Activity: 492

Merit: 503

Quote from: homo homini lupus on February 05, 2015, 11:16:02 AM

before you reach that limit you'll upgrade to 50MB and quantitative ease another 10 million btc into existance to cover miners - that's how it'll end up. (not really because people won't even use the 20MB version)

What plausible reasons can you give for either of those assertions?

Why *wouldn't* people use the 20MB version?

Why *would* the network majority agree to create another 10 million BTC?

homo homini lupus

member

Activity: 84

Merit: 10

Guys, these txs you dream up do not occure right now on the network. A large percentage of txs that do occure currently are microtransactions.
The fork proposal can be seen as a proposal to secure microtransactions with btc hashpower for free. Huh

homo homini lupus

member

Activity: 84

Merit: 10

Quote from: R2D221 on February 05, 2015, 10:20:07 AM

Quote from: grau on February 05, 2015, 10:13:16 AM

Quote from: amincd on February 05, 2015, 10:00:51 AM

But the OP is not proposing an absence of a block size limit. This is a straw man argument, and the fact that it's the second time you've made it, means you're being disingenuous.

Quote from: R2D221 on February 05, 2015, 10:04:47 AM

But there IS a block size limit. It's only going to be bigger, but not infinite.

Increasing the limit to avoid raising fees is in effect asking for no limit, as the reason for the limit is to ensure sufficient fees are paid.

What maths are required to prove that 20MB limit = no limit?

before you reach that limit you'll upgrade to 50MB and quantitative ease another 10 million btc into existance to cover miners - that's how it'll end up. (not really because people won't even use the 20MB version)

sickpig

legendary

Activity: 1260

Merit: 1008

Quote from: grau on February 05, 2015, 10:13:16 AM

Quote from: amincd on February 05, 2015, 10:00:51 AM

But the OP is not proposing an absence of a block size limit. This is a straw man argument, and the fact that it's the second time you've made it, means you're being disingenuous.

Quote from: R2D221 on February 05, 2015, 10:04:47 AM

But there IS a block size limit. It's only going to be bigger, but not infinite.

Increasing the limit to avoid raising fees is in effect asking for no limit, as the reason for the limit is to ensure sufficient fees are paid.

Maybe this is an impertinent question, but isn't the main goal of lifting the max block size increasing the # of tx/s? (Avoiding raising fees is a side effect at best, no?)
And more to the point, it seems to me that 1MB limit was introduced as countermeasure against potential network flooding, am I missing something obvious?

Nancarrow

hero member

Activity: 492

Merit: 503

Quote from: grau on February 05, 2015, 10:30:48 AM

What else would make people pay a fee? I do not think alturism would pay for an infrastructure of 300 mio USD and increasing.

What else, is that the miners don't mine if it's not profitable. And it's NOT altruism to pay a fee to the miners. You can't use bitcoin without miners, so if you want to use bitcoin, you pay a fee. If you DON'T want to use bitcoin, then surely the question of whether or not you WOULD choose to pay a fee is irrelevant?

There are TWO incentives to pay fees - getting your transaction in a block, and having a bitcoin currency at all. Increasing the blocksize may attenuate the first incentive but doesn't remove the second at all.

grau

hero member

Activity: 836

Merit: 1030

bits of proof

Quote from: grau on February 05, 2015, 10:30:48 AM

Quote from: amincd on February 05, 2015, 10:21:50 AM

It's not a binary option. Raising the limit at a moderate pace, so that fees don't have to increase a substantial amount with increasing adoption, is a middle ground solution, that will lead to average fees remaining affordable but not-zero.

There are quite a few constants in Bitcoin that one could argue with, that is what we do. It is however important to do it for the right reason.
Avoid paying fees is not a right reason.

Exending on above:

It is rather difficult to substantiate an algorithm that would set course for the future, given the huge amount of unkown parameters a constant we have is preferred by occam's razor.

grau

hero member

Activity: 836

Merit: 1030

bits of proof

Quote from: Nancarrow on February 05, 2015, 10:20:31 AM

And actually, I think I see your point that IF this were the only mechanism in play regarding how much people pay in fees, it could pose a problem. My counter is that it is NOT the only mechanism in play.

ETA: R2D221, hope this clarifies it for you too.

What else would make people pay a fee? I do not think alturism would pay for an infrastructure of 300 mio USD and increasing.

Quote from: amincd on February 05, 2015, 10:21:50 AM

It's not a binary option. Raising the limit at a moderate pace, so that fees don't have to increase a substantial amount with increasing adoption, is a middle ground solution, that will lead to average fees remaining affordable but not-zero.

There are quite a few constants in Bitcoin that one could argue with, that is what we do. It is however important to do it for the right reason.
Avoid paying fees is not a right reason.

CIYAM

legendary

Activity: 1890

Merit: 1086

Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer

Quote from: Lauda on February 05, 2015, 10:23:40 AM

That's taken right from the FAQ of the project itself. This is just 1 example of potential services that won't be able to get developed completely (if at all).

They just haven't designed it right (so the Bitcoin limits are not really an issue).

Although let's not go off-topic my AT project will be launching "crowdfund" very soon and that could actually work on Bitcoin if Bitcoin were to adopt AT (with no limits for the number of pledges).

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 2965

Terminated.

Quote from: CIYAM on February 05, 2015, 10:15:19 AM

No problem but perhaps it would make more sense if you could expand on what you posted a bit.

Well one of the 'anti' arguments is that there is time and that this should be done in the future (if at all according to them). What they do not realize that it's not just the amount of transactions for the users that are limited.

Quote

Currently you cannot accept more than 684 pledges for your project. This is due to limitations in the Bitcoin protocol - the final contract that claims the pledges is a single Bitcoin transaction, and thus is limited to 500 kilobytes by the Bitcoin block size and protocol relay rules. Lighthouse therefore enforces a minimum pledge size of whatever the goal amount is, divided by the max number of pledges. The more you try and raise, the larger the minimum buy-in becomes.

A future version of Lighthouse could optimise its usage of transaction space to bump up the maximum number of pledges by another few hundred. But ultimately, the fundamental limit is imposed by the Bitcoin block size.

That's taken right from the FAQ of the project itself. This is just 1 example of potential services that won't be able to get developed completely (if at all).

https://www.vinumeris.com/lighthouse

amincd

hero member

Activity: 772

Merit: 501

Quote from: grau on February 05, 2015, 10:13:16 AM

Quote from: amincd on February 05, 2015, 10:00:51 AM

But the OP is not proposing an absence of a block size limit. This is a straw man argument, and the fact that it's the second time you've made it, means you're being disingenuous.

Quote from: R2D221 on February 05, 2015, 10:04:47 AM

But there IS a block size limit. It's only going to be bigger, but not infinite.

Increasing the limit to avoid raising fees is in effect asking for no limit, as the reason for the limit is to ensure sufficient fees are paid.

It's not a binary option. Raising the limit at a moderate pace, so that fees don't have to increase a substantial amount with increasing adoption, is a middle ground solution, that will lead to average fees remaining affordable but not-zero.

Nancarrow

hero member

Activity: 492

Merit: 503

Quote from: grau on February 05, 2015, 10:13:16 AM

Quote from: amincd on February 05, 2015, 10:00:51 AM

But the OP is not proposing an absence of a block size limit. This is a straw man argument, and the fact that it's the second time you've made it, means you're being disingenuous.

Quote from: R2D221 on February 05, 2015, 10:04:47 AM

But there IS a block size limit. It's only going to be bigger, but not infinite.

Increasing the limit to avoid raising fees is in effect asking for no limit, as the reason for the limit is to ensure sufficient fees are paid.

This is a valid point. As far as incentivising fees goes, a block limit that is always just a bit bigger than it needs to be, is functionally equivalent to no block limit at all.

And actually, I think I see your point that IF this were the only mechanism in play regarding how much people pay in fees, it could pose a problem. My counter is that it is NOT the only mechanism in play.

ETA: R2D221, hope this clarifies it for you too.

R2D221

hero member

Activity: 658

Merit: 500

Quote from: grau on February 05, 2015, 10:13:16 AM

Quote from: amincd on February 05, 2015, 10:00:51 AM

But the OP is not proposing an absence of a block size limit. This is a straw man argument, and the fact that it's the second time you've made it, means you're being disingenuous.

Quote from: R2D221 on February 05, 2015, 10:04:47 AM

But there IS a block size limit. It's only going to be bigger, but not infinite.

Increasing the limit to avoid raising fees is in effect asking for no limit, as the reason for the limit is to ensure sufficient fees are paid.

What maths are required to prove that 20MB limit = no limit?

homo homini lupus

member

Activity: 84

Merit: 10

Quote from: uvt9 on February 05, 2015, 09:59:55 AM

can someone put on a TL;DR of original post for a lazy and non-technical reader like me Cry

the tl,dr - version is here:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.10364386

CIYAM

legendary

Activity: 1890

Merit: 1086

Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer

Quote from: Lauda on February 05, 2015, 10:12:52 AM

Quote from: CIYAM on February 05, 2015, 10:08:35 AM

Sorry - but that makes *zero* sense (especially as I stated that I am not against raising the 1 MB limit in the first place).

I misunderstood your post, sorry.
My post does however make sense, also I was referring to the like of the Lighthouse project.

No problem but perhaps it would make more sense if you could expand on what you posted a bit.

grau

hero member

Activity: 836

Merit: 1030

bits of proof

Quote from: amincd on February 05, 2015, 10:00:51 AM

But the OP is not proposing an absence of a block size limit. This is a straw man argument, and the fact that it's the second time you've made it, means you're being disingenuous.

Quote from: R2D221 on February 05, 2015, 10:04:47 AM

But there IS a block size limit. It's only going to be bigger, but not infinite.

Increasing the limit to avoid raising fees is in effect asking for no limit, as the reason for the limit is to ensure sufficient fees are paid.

Topic: Permanently keeping the 1MB (anti-spam) restriction is a great idea ... - page 19. (Read 105069 times)