Block Size Increase Requirements

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 ignoring debate and pushing people towards a consensus at all costs, ( ;) ) I'm gonna go ahead and suggest we talk about the second.

Personally, there are several things that worry me significantly about committing to a blocksize increase, which I'd like to see resolved before I'd consider supporting a blocksize increase commitment.

* Though there are many proposals floating around which could significantly decrease block propagation latency, none of them are implemented today. I'd expect to see these not only implemented but being used in production (though I dont particularly care about them being all that stable). I'd want to see measurements of how they perform both in production and in the face of high packet loss (eg across the GFW or in the case of small/moderate DoS). In addition, I'd expect to see analysis of how these systems perform in the worst-case, not just packet-loss-wise, but in the face of miners attempting to break the system.

* I'd very much like to see someone working on better scaling technology, both in terms of development and in terms of getting traction in the marketplace. I know StrawPay is working on development, though its not obvious to me how far they are from their website, but I dont know of any commitments by large players (either SPV wallets, centralized wallet services, payment processors, or any others) to support such a system (to be fair, its probably too early for such players to commit to anything, since anything doesnt exist in public).

* I'd like to see some better conclusions to the discussion around long-term incentives within the system. If we're just building Bitcoin to work in five years, great, but if we want it all to keep working as subsidy drops significantly, I'd like a better answer than "we'll deal with it when we get there" or "it will happen, all the predictions based on people's behavior today say so" (which are hopefully invalid thanks to the previous point). Ideally, I'd love to see some real free pressure already on the network starting to develop when we commit to hardforking in a year. Not just full blocks with some fees because wallets are including far greater fees than they really need to, but software which properly handles fees across the ecosystem, smart fee increases when transactions arent confirming (eg replace-by-fee, which could be limited to increase-in-fees-only for those worried about double-spends).

I probably forgot one or two and certainly dont want to back myself into a corner on committing to something here, but those are a few things I see today as big blockers on larger blocks.

Luckily, people have been making progress on building the software needed in all of the above for a while now, but I think they're all very, very immature today.

On 05/07/15 19:13, Jeff Garzik wrote:> On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 3:03 PM, Matt Corallo <bitcoin-list@bluematt•me

> <mailto:bitcoin-list@bluematt.me>> wrote:

-snip-

>> If, instead, there had been an intro on the list as "I think we should
>> do the blocksize increase soon, what do people think?", the response
>> could likely have focused much more around creating a specific list of
>> things we should do before we (the technical community) think we are
>> prepared for a blocksize increase.
>
> Agreed, but that is water under the bridge at this point.  You - rightly
> - opened the topic here and now we're discussing it.
>
> Mike and Gavin are due the benefit of doubt because making a change to a
> leaderless automaton powered by leaderless open source software is
> breaking new ground.  I don't focus so much on how we got to this point,
> but rather, where we go from here.

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 think ultimately, the underlying tension with this discussion is about the relative power of miners. Any transition of blocksize increase will increase the influence of miners, and it is about understanding the tradeoffs for each possible approach.

On Thu, May 07, 2015 at 10:02:09PM +0000, Matt Corallo wrote:

>  * I'd like to see some better conclusions to the discussion around
> long-term incentives within the system. If we're just building Bitcoin
> to work in five years, great, but if we want it all to keep working as
> subsidy drops significantly, I'd like a better answer than "we'll deal
> with it when we get there" or "it will happen, all the predictions based
> on people's behavior today say so" (which are hopefully invalid thanks
> to the previous point). Ideally, I'd love to see some real free pressure
> already on the network starting to develop when we commit to hardforking
> in a year. Not just full blocks with some fees because wallets are
> including far greater fees than they really need to, but software which
> properly handles fees across the ecosystem, smart fee increases when
> transactions arent confirming (eg replace-by-fee, which could be limited
> to increase-in-fees-only for those worried about double-spends).

I think the long-term fee incentive structure needs to be significantly more granular. We've all seen miners and pools take the path of least resistance; often they just do whatever the community tells them to blindly. While this status quo can change in the future, I think designing sane defaults is a good path for any possible transition.

It seems especially reasonable to maintain fee pressure for normal transactions during a hard-fork transition. It's possible to do so using some kind of soft-cap structure. Building in a default soft-cap of 1 megabyte for some far future scheduled fork would seem like a sane thing to do for bitcoin-core.

It seems also viable to be far more aggressive. What's your (and the community's) opinion on some kind of coinbase voting protocol for soft-cap enforcement? It's possible to write in messages to the coinbase for a enforcible soft-cap that orphans out any transaction which violates these rules. It seems safest to have the transition has the first hardforked block be above 1MB, however, the next block default to an enforced 1MB block. If miners agree to go above this, they must vote in their coinbase to do so.

There's a separate discussion about this starting on: CAE-z3OXnjayLUeHBU0hdwU5pKrJ6fpj7YPtGBMQ7hKXG3Sj6hw@mail•gmail•com

I think defaulting some kind of mechanism on reading the coinbase seems to be a good idea, I think left alone, miners may not do so. That way, it's possible to have your cake and eat it too, fee pressure will still exist, while block sizes can increase (provided it's in the miners' greater interests to do so).

The Lightning Network's security model in the long-term may rely on a multi-tier soft-cap, but I'm not sure. If 2nd order systemic miner incentives were not a concern, a system which has an enforced soft-cap and permits breaching that soft-cap with some agreed upon much higher fee would work best. LN works without this, but it seems to be more secure if some kind of miner consensus rule is reached regarding prioritizing behavior of 2nd-layer consensus states.

No matter how it's done, certain aspects of the security model of something like Lightning is reliant upon having block-space availability for transactions to enter into the blockchain in a timely manner (since "deprecated" channel states become valid again after some agreed upon block-time).

I think pretty much everyone agrees that the 1MB block cap will eventually be a problem. While people may disagree with when that will be and how it'll play out, I think we're all in agreement that discussion about it is a good idea, especially when it comes to resolving blocking concerns.

Starting a discussion on how a hypothetical blocksize increase will occur and the necessary blocking/want-to-have features/tradeoffs seems to be a great way to approach this problem. The needs for Lightning Network may be best optimized by being able to prioritizing a large mass of timeout transactions at once (when a well-connected node stops communicating).

On Thu, May 07, 2015 at 10:02:09PM +0000, 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 ignoring debate and pushing people towards a consensus
> at all costs, ( ;) ) I'm gonna go ahead and suggest we talk about the
> second.
>
> Personally, there are several things that worry me significantly about
> committing to a blocksize increase, which I'd like to see resolved
> before I'd consider supporting a blocksize increase commitment.
>
>  * Though there are many proposals floating around which could
> significantly decrease block propagation latency, none of them are
> implemented today. I'd expect to see these not only implemented but
> being used in production (though I dont particularly care about them
> being all that stable). I'd want to see measurements of how they perform
> both in production and in the face of high packet loss (eg across the
> GFW or in the case of small/moderate DoS). In addition, I'd expect to
> see analysis of how these systems perform in the worst-case, not just
> packet-loss-wise, but in the face of miners attempting to break the system.

It's really important that we remember that we're building security software: it *must* hold up well even in the face of attack. That means we need to figure out how it can be attacked, what the cost/profits of such attacks are, and if the holes can be patched. Just testing the software with simulated loads is insufficient.

Also, re: breaking, don't forget that this may not be a malicious act. For instance, someone can send contradictory transactions to different parts of the network simultaneously to prevent mempool consistency - there's no easy way to fix this. There are also cases where miners have different policy than others, e.g. version disagreements, commercial contracts for tx mining, etc.

Finally, remember that it's not in miners' incentives in many situations for their blocks to propagate to more than ~30% of the hashing power.(1)

Personally, I'm really skeptical that we'll ever find a block propagation latency reduction technique that sucesfully meets all the above criteria without changing the consensus algorithm itself.

* How do we ensure miners don't cheat and stop validating blocks fully before building on them? This is a significant moral hazard with larger blocks if fees don't become significant, and can lead to dangerous forks. Also, think of the incentives: Why would a miner ever switch from the longest chain, even if they don't actually have the blocks to back it up?

* We need a clear understanding of how we expect new full nodes, pruned or not, to sync up to the blockchain. Obviously 20MB blocks significantly increases the time and data required to sync. Are we planning on simply giving up on full validation and trusting others for copies of UTXO sets? Are we going to rely on UTXO commitments? What happens if the UTXO set size itself increases greatly?

>  * I'd very much like to see someone working on better scaling
> technology, both in terms of development and in terms of getting
> traction in the marketplace. I know StrawPay is working on development,
> though its not obvious to me how far they are from their website, but I
> dont know of any commitments by large players (either SPV wallets,
> centralized wallet services, payment processors, or any others) to
> support such a system (to be fair, its probably too early for such
> players to commit to anything, since anything doesnt exist in public).

A good start would be for those players to commit to the general principles of these systems; if they can't commit explain why.

For instance I'd be very interested in knowing if services like Coinbase see legal issues with adopting technologies such as payment channels between hosted wallet providers, payment processors, etc. I certainly wouldn't be surprised if they see doing anythign not on-blockchain as a source of legal uncertainty - based on discussions I've had with regulatory types in this space it sounds like there's a reasonable chance protocol details such as requiring that transactions happen on a public blockchain will be "baked into" regulatory requirements.

>  * I'd like to see some better conclusions to the discussion around
> long-term incentives within the system. If we're just building Bitcoin
> to work in five years, great, but if we want it all to keep working as
> subsidy drops significantly, I'd like a better answer than "we'll deal
> with it when we get there" or "it will happen, all the predictions based
> on people's behavior today say so" (which are hopefully invalid thanks
> to the previous point). Ideally, I'd love to see some real free pressure
> already on the network starting to develop when we commit to hardforking
> in a year.

Agreed.

> Not just full blocks with some fees because wallets are
> including far greater fees than they really need to, but software which
> properly handles fees across the ecosystem, smart fee increases when
> transactions arent confirming (eg replace-by-fee, which could be limited
> to increase-in-fees-only for those worried about double-spends).

FWIW I've got some funding to implement first-seen-safe replace-by-fee.

1) http://www.mail-archive.com/bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net/msg03200.html

--[remove this line and above]-- On Thu, 7 May 2015, Gregory Maxwell wrote:

> Date: Thu, 7 May 2015 00:37:54 +0000
> From: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail•com>
> To: Matt Corallo <bitcoin-list@bluematt•me>
> Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge•net>
> Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Block Size Increase
>
> Thanks Matt; I was actually really confused by this sudden push with
> not a word here or on Github--so much so that I responded on Reddit to
> people pointing to commits in Gavin's personal repository saying they
> were reading too much into it.

I saw this. I was also pointing this out to the people who were asking me. A commit to a personal repository does not at first seem more than experimental. sipa commits weird/neat things to private branches all the time, after all.

> to share behavior. In the case of mining, we're trying to optimize the
> social good of POW security. (But the analogy applies in other ways
> too:

About the only argument IMO in favour of block size increases is to assume that making more room in a block will make it attractive to use for more people at some point in the future: increasing transaction velocity, increasing economy size, increasing value overall.

> increases to the chain side are largely an externality; miners enjoy
> the
> benefits, everyone else takes the costs--either in reduced security or
> higher node operating else.)

Who else but miners and pool operators will run full nodes when full nodes are being shut down because they are too large and unwieldy to maintain? It is already so that casual users refuse to run full nodes. This fact is indisputable. The only question remaining is, "Do we care?" Arguments against users who feel that the dataset is too large to run a full node, full-time, start from a premise that these users are a static and irrelevant fraction. Is this even true? "Do we care?" I do. I will shortly only be able to run half the nodes I currently do thanks to the growth of the blockchain at its current rate.

> One potential argument is that maybe miners would be _regulated_ to
> behave correctly. But this would require undermining the openness of
> the
> system--where anyone can mine anonymously--in order to enforce
> behavior,
> and that same enforcement mechanism would leave a political level to
> impose additional rules that violate the extra properties of the
> system.

I would refuse to mine under such a regulated regime; moreover, I would enjoy forking away from this, and, I suspect, the only miners who remain would be those whose ultimate motivations do not coincide with the users. That is, the set of miners who are users, and the set of users who are miners, would be wholly non-intersecting.

> So far the mining ecosystem has become incredibly centralized over
> time.

This is unfortunate but true.

> of the regular contributors to Bitcoin Core do. Many participants
> have never mined or only did back in 2010/2011... we've basically
> ignored the mining ecosystem, and this has had devastating effects,
> causing a latent undermining of the security model: hacking a dozen or
> so computers--operated under totally unknown and probably not strong
> security policies--could compromise the network at least at the tip...

The explicit form of the block dictated by the reference client and agreed-to by the people who were sold on bitcoin near the beginning (myself included) was explicitly the notion that the rules were static; that the nature of transaction foundations and the subsidies would not be altered. Here we have a hardfork being contemplated which is not only controversial, but does not even address some of the highest-utility and most-requested features in peoples' hardfork wishlists.

The fact that mining has effectively been centralized directly implies that destabilizing changes that some well-heeled (and thus theoretically capable, at least) people have explicitly begun plans to fork the blockchain about will have an unknown, and completely unforeseen combined effect.

We can pretend that, "If merchants and miners and exchanges go along, then who else matters," but the reality is that the value in bitcoin exists because *people* use it for real transactions: Not miners, whose profits are parasitically fractionally based on the quality and strength of the bitcoin economy as a whole; not exchanges who lubricate transactions in service to the economy; not even today's merchants whose primary means of accepting bitcoin seems to be to convert them instantly to fiat and not participate meaningfully in the economy at all; not enriched felons; but actual users themselves.

> Rightfully we should be regarding this an an emergency, and probably
> should have been have since 2011.

There are two ways to look at it, assuming that the blocksize change increases bitcoin's value to people after all: mining centralization will be corrected; or, mining centralization will not be corrected.

I would argue that rapidly increasing profitability at this point will exacerbate the mining centralization problem, and in much the same way as when people were throwing money and unknowingly funding the massive frauds of the current cabals when bitcoin's exchange-driven rise to $1200 was first realized.

Thus, even if the premise were true, what will a blocksize increase achieve given mining centralization itself is a bigger systemic risk?

> Hardfork changes should only be made if they're almost completely
> uncontroversial--where virtually everyone can look at the available
> data
> and say "yea, that isn't undermining my property rights or future use
> of Bitcoin; it's no big deal".

The recent "revelation" that there are masses of paid trolls on popular forum sites like reddit who supposedly don't even know who is hiring them, and the anger of more vociferous commenters in general, does not invalidate the relevance of every non-"industry" voice. I think elevating the discussion away from the users does the system and the development process as a whole quite an injustice.

> I'm curious as to what discussions people have seen; e.g., are people
> even here aware of these concerns? Are you aware of things like the
> hashcash mediated dynamic blocksize limiting?

I have seen most of these; or the ideas seem obvious based on their names.

> About proposals like lightning network (instant transactions and
> massive
> scale, in exchange for some short term DOS risk if a counterparty opts
> out)? Do people (other than Mike Hearn; I guess) think a future where
> everyone depends on a small number of "Google scale" node operations
> for
> the system is actually okay? (I think not, and if so we're never going
> to
> agree--but it can be helpful to understand when a disagreement is
> ideological).

It is not okay. If the current mining cabals continue to exist, and flourish, and the developers make major changes that ignore this glaring elephant, then the decentralized promise of bitcoin will be put more at risk.

signmessage 1DdcrjT9Yqb6U58wVMA2e7untFbz2rmZd4 "49786791f4d0a260689867ccdfb2cc5b8460984e335504444ade113d2768505c" G6NPl7Wklo9lcdgeVI2H2pexzgqD0KPHhI/wAe32DBm8m59Qf31j5d4tsx5drcql/8wPeIb0QGarr/o4VIOLLGE=

--[remove this line and below]-- HHsTfiZ/S7+GNYRwws+QyAr+6/MgDz0Jyntl7CAvjhdfzbnwPorybQUXxRw3CE4DgYgAy1zLanE8H/5NK+l3UlE=

>
>  * 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 from 1mb to 20mb where miners felt a need to throttle their block sizes artificially, for the exact reason you point out: propagation delays.

But we don't *need* to have fancy protocol upgrades implemented right now. All we need is to demolish one bottleneck (the hard cap) so we can then move on and demolish the next one (whatever that is, probably faster propagation). Scaling is a series of walls we punch through as we encounter them. One down, onto the next. We don't have to tackle them all simultaneously.

FWIW I don't think the GFW just triggers packet loss, these days. It's blocked port 8333 entirely.

 * I'd very much like to see someone working on better scaling

> technology ... I know StrawPay is working on development,
>

So this request is already satisfied, isn't it? As you point out, expecting more at this stage in development is unreasonable, there's nothing for anyone to experiment with or commit to.

They have code here, by the way:

   https://github.com/strawpay

You can find their fork of MultiBit HD, their implementation library, etc. They've contributed patches and improvements to the payment channels code we wrote.

>  * I'd like to see some better conclusions to the discussion around
> long-term incentives within the system.
>

What are your thoughts on using assurance contracts to fund network security?

I don't *know* if hashing assurance contracts (HACs) will work. But I don't know they won't work either. And right now I'm pretty sure that plain old fee pressure won't work. Demand doesn't outstrip supply forever - people find substitutes.

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.

The soft-limit is there miners themselves produce smaller blocks; the soft-limit does not prevent other miners from producing larger blocks.

As we're talking about ways that other miners can use 20MB blocks to harm the competition, talking about the soft-limit is irrelevant. Similarly, as security engineers we must plan for the worst case; as we've seen before by your campaigns to raise the soft-limit(1) even at a time when the vast majority of transaction volume was from one user (SatoshiDice) soft-limits are an extremely weak form of control.

For the proposes of discussing blocksize increase requirements we can stop talking about the soft-limit.

1) https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=149668.0

On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 5:37 PM, Peter Todd <pete@petertodd•org> 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 merchants would have a less strict rule than the rule for miners. Miners who don't set their miners flag might get orphaned off the chain.

For example, the limits could be setup as follows.

Clients: 20MB Miners: 4MB

When in "miner mode", the client would reject 4MB blocks and wouldn't build on them. The reference client might even track the miner and the non-miner chain tip.

Miners would refuse to build on 5MB blocks, but merchants and general users would accept them.

This allows the miners to soft fork the limit at some point in the future. If 75% of miners decided to up the limit to 8MB, then all merchants and the general users would accept the new blocks. It could follow the standard soft fork rules.

This is a more general version of the system where miners are allowed to vote on the block size (subject to a higher limit).

A similar system is where clients track all header trees. Your wallet could warn you that there is an invalid tree that has > 75% of the hashing power and you might want to upgrade.

On Fri, May 08, 2015 at 08:47:52PM +0100, Tier Nolan wrote:

> On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 5:37 PM, Peter Todd <pete@petertodd•org> 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.

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 attacked via their nodes as well would be a disaster.

> When in "miner mode", the client would reject 4MB blocks and wouldn't build
> on them.  The reference client might even track the miner and the non-miner
> chain tip.
>
> Miners would refuse to build on 5MB blocks, but merchants and general users
> would accept them.

That'd be an excellent way to double-spend merchants, significantly increasing the chance that the double-spend would succeed as you only have to get sufficient hashing power to get the lucky blocks; you don't need enough hashing power to *also* ensure those blocks don't become the longest chain, removing the need to sybil attack your target.

Comments in line:

> On May 8, 2015, at 11:08 PM, Peter Todd <pete@petertodd•org> 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 attacked via their nodes as well would
> be a disaster.

It seems that using a -miner flag to follow rules about smaller blocks would only reveal miner nodes if one sent the node a solved block that that was valid in every way except the block size. While not impossible, I wouldn't call this trivial, as it still requires wasting an entire block's worth of energy.

>> When in "miner mode", the client would reject 4MB blocks and wouldn't build
>> on them.  The reference client might even track the miner and the non-miner
>> chain tip.
>>
>> Miners would refuse to build on 5MB blocks, but merchants and general users
>> would accept them.
>
> That'd be an excellent way to double-spend merchants, significantly
> increasing the chance that the double-spend would succeed as you only
> have to get sufficient hashing power to get the lucky blocks; you don't
> need enough hashing power to *also* ensure those blocks don't become the
> longest chain, removing the need to sybil attack your target.
>

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 that met their own size restrictions but not the miners', then they would simply count it as unconfirmed.

If they get deep enough in the chain, though, the client should probably count them as being confirmed anyway, even if they don't meet the client nodes' expectation of the miners' block size limit. This happening probably just means that the client has not updated their software (or -minermaxblocksize configuration, depending on how it is implemented) in a long time.

I actually like Tier's suggestion quite a bit. I think we could have the default client limit set to some higher number, and have miners agree out of band on the latest block size limit. Or maybe even build in a way to vote into the blockchain.

Best, Stephen

On Sat, May 9, 2015 at 4:08 AM, Peter Todd <pete@petertodd•org> 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 tracked. The miner tip and the client tip.

Miners would build on the miner tip. When performing client services, like wallets, they would use the client tip.

The client would act exactly the same as any node, the only change would be that it gives miner work based on the mining tip.

If the two tips end up significantly forking, there would be a warning to the miner and perhaps eventually refuse to give out new work.

That would happen when there was a miner level hard-fork.

> That'd be an excellent way to double-spend merchants, significantly
> increasing the chance that the double-spend would succeed as you only
> have to get sufficient hashing power to get the lucky blocks; you don't
> need enough hashing power to *also* ensure those blocks don't become the
> longest chain, removing the need to sybil attack your target.
>

To launch that attack, you need to produce fake blocks. That is expensive.

Stephen Cale's suggestion to wait more than one block before counting a transaction as confirmed would also help mitigate.

On Sat, May 16, 2015 at 5:39 AM, Stephen <stephencalebmorse@gmail•com> 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 that met their own size restrictions but not the
> miners', then they would simply count it as unconfirmed.
>

In effect, there is a confirm penalty for less strict blocks. Confirms = max(miner_confirms, merchant_confirms - 3, 0)

Merchants who don't upgrade end up having to wait longer to hit confirmations.

If they get deep enough in the chain, though, the client should probably

> count them as being confirmed anyway, even if they don't meet the client
> nodes' expectation of the miners' block size limit. This happening probably
> just means that the client has not updated their software (or
> -minermaxblocksize configuration, depending on how it is implemented) in a
> long time.
>

That is a good idea. Any parameters that have miner/merchant differences should be modifiable (but only upwards) in the command line.

"Why are my transactions taking longer to confirm?"

"There was a soft fork to make the block size larger and your client is being careful. You need to add "minermaxblocksize=4MB" to your bitcoin.conf file."

Hah, it could be called a "semi-hard fork"?

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 <bitcoin-list@bluematt•me> wrote:

>
>
>  * Though there are many proposals floating around which could
> significantly decrease block propagation latency, none of them are
> implemented today.

If block propagation isn't fixed, then mines have a strong incentive to create smaller blocks.

So the max block size is irrelevant, it won't get hit.

> In addition, I'd expect to
> see analysis of how these systems perform in the worst-case, not just
> packet-loss-wise, but in the face of miners attempting to break the system.
>

See http://gavinandresen.ninja/are-bigger-blocks-better-for-bigger-miners for analysis of "but that means bigger miners can get an advantage" argument.

Executive summary: if little miners are stupid and produce huge blocks, then yes, big miners have an advantage.

But they're not, so they won't.

Until the block reward goes away, and assuming transaction fees become an important source of revenue for miners. I think it is too early to worry about that; see:

   http://gavinandresen.ninja/when-the-block-reward-goes-away

>  * I'd very much like to see someone working on better scaling
> technology, both in terms of development and in terms of getting
> traction in the marketplace.

Ok. What does this have to do with the max block size?

Are you arguing that work won't happen if the max block size increases?

  * I'd like to see some better conclusions to the discussion around

> long-term incentives within the system.

Again, see http://gavinandresen.ninja/when-the-block-reward-goes-away for what I think about that.

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 <bitcoin-list@bluematt•me
> <mailto:bitcoin-list@bluematt.me>> wrote:
>
>
>
>      * Though there are many proposals floating around which could
>     significantly decrease block propagation latency, none of them are
>     implemented today.
>
>
> If block propagation isn't fixed, then mines have a strong incentive to
> create smaller blocks.
>
> So the max block size is irrelevant, it won't get hit.

Sadly, this is very far from the whole story. The issue of miners optimizing for returns has been discussed several times during this discussion, and, sadly, miners who are geographically colocated who are optimizing for returns with a free-floating blocksize will optimize away 50% of the network!

>
>     In addition, I'd expect to
>     see analysis of how these systems perform in the worst-case, not just
>     packet-loss-wise, but in the face of miners attempting to break the
>     system.
>
>
> See http://gavinandresen.ninja/are-bigger-blocks-better-for-bigger-miners for
> analysis of "but that means bigger miners can get an advantage" argument.
>
> Executive summary: if little miners are stupid and produce huge blocks,
> then yes, big miners have an advantage.

I'll talk about transaction fees in a second, but there are several problems with this already. As pointed out in the original mail, gfw has already been known to interfere with Bitcoin P2P traffic. So now by "little" miners, you mean any miner who is not located in mainland China? Whats worse, the disadvantage is symmetric - little miners are at a disadvantage when *anyone* mines a bigger block, and miners dont even have to be "evil" for this to happen - just optimize for profits.

> But they're not, so they won't.

I dont know what you're referring to with this. Are you claiming little miners today optimize for relay times and have good visibility into the Bitcoin network and calculate an optimal block size based on this (or would with a 20MB block size)?

> Until the block reward goes away, and assuming transaction fees become
> an important source of revenue for miners.
> I think it is too early to worry about that; see:
>
>    http://gavinandresen.ninja/when-the-block-reward-goes-away

You dont make any points here with which I can argue, but let me respond with the reason /I/ think it is a problem worth thinking a little bit about...If we increase the blocksize sufficiently such that transaction fees are not the way in which miners make their money, then either miners are not being funded (ie hashpower has to drop to very little), or the only people mining/funding miners are large orgs who are "running" Bitcoin (ie the web wallets, payment processors, big merchants, and exchanges of the world). Sadly, this is no longer a decentralized Bitcoin and is, in fact, pretty much how the banking world works today.

I'm not sure who, if anyone, claims Bitcoin is novel or interesting for any reason other than its decentralization properties, and, in a world which you are apparently proposing, the "natural" course of things is to very strongly centralize.

>      * I'd very much like to see someone working on better scaling
>     technology, both in terms of development and in terms of getting
>     traction in the marketplace.
>
>
> Ok. What does this have to do with the max block size?
>
> Are you arguing that work won't happen if the max block size increases?

Yes, I am arguing that by increasing the blocksize the incentives to actually make Bitcoin scale go away. Even if amazing technologies get built, no one will have any reason to use them.

>   * I'd like to see some better conclusions to the discussion around
>
>     long-term incentives within the system.
>
>
> Again, see http://gavinandresen.ninja/when-the-block-reward-goes-away
> for what I think about that.

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 only if a small fraction of blocks more than 10 MB, it could dramatically increase of our orphan rate, result of higher fee to miners. Bad miners could attack us and the network with artificial big blocks. As yhou know, other Chinese pools, AntPool, BW, they produces ASIC chips and mining mostly with their own machines. They do not care about a few percent of orphan increase as much as we do. They would continue their zero fee policy. We would be the biggest loser. As the exchanges had taught us, zero fee is not health to the network. Also we have to redevelop our block broadcast logic. Server bandwidth is a lot more expensive in China. And the Internet is slow. Currently China has more than 50% of mining power, if block size increases, I bet European and American pools could suffer more than us. We think the max block size should be increased, but must be increased smoothly, 2 MB first, and then after one or two years 4 MB, then 8 MB, and so on. Thanks.

On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 6:02 AM, Matt Corallo <bitcoin-list@bluematt•me> 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 ignoring debate and pushing people towards a consensus
> at all costs, ( ;) ) I'm gonna go ahead and suggest we talk about the
> second.
>
> Personally, there are several things that worry me significantly about
> committing to a blocksize increase, which I'd like to see resolved
> before I'd consider supporting a blocksize increase commitment.
>
>  * Though there are many proposals floating around which could
> significantly decrease block propagation latency, none of them are
> implemented today. I'd expect to see these not only implemented but
> being used in production (though I dont particularly care about them
> being all that stable). I'd want to see measurements of how they perform
> both in production and in the face of high packet loss (eg across the
> GFW or in the case of small/moderate DoS). In addition, I'd expect to
> see analysis of how these systems perform in the worst-case, not just
> packet-loss-wise, but in the face of miners attempting to break the system.
>
>  * I'd very much like to see someone working on better scaling
> technology, both in terms of development and in terms of getting
> traction in the marketplace. I know StrawPay is working on development,
> though its not obvious to me how far they are from their website, but I
> dont know of any commitments by large players (either SPV wallets,
> centralized wallet services, payment processors, or any others) to
> support such a system (to be fair, its probably too early for such
> players to commit to anything, since anything doesnt exist in public).
>
>  * I'd like to see some better conclusions to the discussion around
> long-term incentives within the system. If we're just building Bitcoin
> to work in five years, great, but if we want it all to keep working as
> subsidy drops significantly, I'd like a better answer than "we'll deal
> with it when we get there" or "it will happen, all the predictions based
> on people's behavior today say so" (which are hopefully invalid thanks
> to the previous point). Ideally, I'd love to see some real free pressure
> already on the network starting to develop when we commit to hardforking
> in a year. Not just full blocks with some fees because wallets are
> including far greater fees than they really need to, but software which
> properly handles fees across the ecosystem, smart fee increases when
> transactions arent confirming (eg replace-by-fee, which could be limited
> to increase-in-fees-only for those worried about double-spends).
>
> I probably forgot one or two and certainly dont want to back myself into
> a corner on committing to something here, but those are a few things I
> see today as big blockers on larger blocks.
>
> Luckily, people have been making progress on building the software
> needed in all of the above for a while now, but I think they're all
> very, very immature today.
>
> On 05/07/15 19:13, Jeff Garzik wrote:> On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 3:03 PM,
> Matt Corallo <bitcoin-list@bluematt•me
>> <mailto:bitcoin-list@bluematt.me>> wrote:
> -snip-
>>> If, instead, there had been an intro on the list as "I think we should
>>> do the blocksize increase soon, what do people think?", the response
>>> could likely have focused much more around creating a specific list of
>>> things we should do before we (the technical community) think we are
>>> prepared for a blocksize increase.
>>
>> Agreed, but that is water under the bridge at this point.  You - rightly
>> - opened the topic here and now we're discussing it.
>>
>> Mike and Gavin are due the benefit of doubt because making a change to a
>> leaderless automaton powered by leaderless open source software is
>> breaking new ground.  I don't focus so much on how we got to this point,
>> but rather, where we go from here.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> One dashboard for servers and applications across Physical-Virtual-Cloud
> Widest out-of-the-box monitoring support with 50+ applications
> Performance metrics, stats and reports that give you Actionable Insights
> Deep dive visibility with transaction tracing using APM Insight.
> http://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/290420510;117567292;y
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge•net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development

On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 7:42 PM, Chun Wang <1240902@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 simulations, and I could not find a network topology where a big miner producing big blocks could cause a loss of profit to another miner (big or small) producing smaller blocks:

http://gavinandresen.ninja/are-bigger-blocks-better-for-bigger-miners

(the 0.3% advantage I DID find was for the situation where EVERYBODY was producing big blocks).

> We think
> the max block size should be increased, but must be increased
> smoothly, 2 MB first, and then after one or two years 4 MB, then 8 MB,
> and so on. Thanks.

Why 2 MB ? You said that server bandwidth is much more expensive in China; what would be the difference in your bandwidth costs between 2MB blocks and 20MB blocks?

On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 9:57 PM, Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail•com> wrote:

> On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 7:42 PM, Chun Wang <1240902@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 simulations, and I could not find a network topology where a
> big miner producing big blocks could cause a loss of profit to another
> miner (big or small) producing smaller blocks:
>
> http://gavinandresen.ninja/are-bigger-blocks-better-for-bigger-miners
>
> (the 0.3% advantage I DID find was for the situation where EVERYBODY was
> producing big blocks).
>
>
>> We think
>> the max block size should be increased, but must be increased
>> smoothly, 2 MB first, and then after one or two years 4 MB, then 8 MB,
>> and so on. Thanks.
>
>
> Why 2 MB ?   You said that server bandwidth is much more expensive in
> China; what would be the difference in your bandwidth costs between 2MB
> blocks and 20MB blocks?
>

Perhaps we should arrange to run some more 'simulations' with miners from China and elsewhere?

Let me know there's interest to do.

p.

>
>
> --
> --
> Gavin Andresen
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge•net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>
>

On 05/29/15 23:48, Gavin Andresen wrote:

> On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 7:25 PM, Matt Corallo <bitcoin-list@bluematt•me
> <mailto:bitcoin-list@bluematt.me>> 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, and, sadly, miners who are geographically colocated who are
>     optimizing for returns with a free-floating blocksize will optimize away
>     50% of the network!
>
>
> I must have missed that analysis-- link please?  Or summary of HOW they
> will optimize away 50% of the network?
>
> Or are you assuming that 50% of the network is colocated... (which is a
> potential problem independent of blocksize)

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 relay out of China. By simple trial-and-error an individual large miner might notice that when they create larger blocks which fork off miners in other parts of the world, they get more income. Obviously forking off 50% of the network would be a rather extreme situation and assumes all kinds of simplified models, but it shows that the incentives here are very far from aligned, and your simplified good-behavior models are very far from convincing.

>
>     >
>     >     In addition, I'd expect to
>     >     see analysis of how these systems perform in the worst-case, not just
>     >     packet-loss-wise, but in the face of miners attempting to break the
>     >     system.
>     >
>     >
>     > See http://gavinandresen.ninja/are-bigger-blocks-better-for-bigger-miners for
>     > analysis of "but that means bigger miners can get an advantage" argument.
>     >
>     > Executive summary: if little miners are stupid and produce huge blocks,
>     > then yes, big miners have an advantage.
>
>     I'll talk about transaction fees in a second, but there are several
>     problems with this already. As pointed out in the original mail, gfw has
>     already been known to interfere with Bitcoin P2P traffic. So now by
>     "little" miners, you mean any miner who is not located in mainland
>     China? Whats worse, the disadvantage is symmetric - little miners are at
>     a disadvantage when *anyone* mines a bigger block, and miners dont even
>     have to be "evil" for this to happen - just optimize for profits.
>
>
> But the disadvantage is tiny. And essentially zero if they connect to
> your fast relay network (or anything like it).
>

The disadvantage is small with 1MB blocks, but already non-zero. 20MB blocks are much, much worse (lots of things here dont scale linearly, even just transfer over a high-packet-loss-link). I mentioned this in my original email as something which doesnt make me comfortable with 20MB blocks, but something which needs simulation and study, and might actually be just fine!

>
>     > But they're not, so they won't.
>
>     I dont know what you're referring to with this. Are you claiming little
>     miners today optimize for relay times and have good visibility into the
>     Bitcoin network and calculate an optimal block size based on this (or
>     would with a 20MB block size)?
>
>
> Do you have another explanation for why miners choose to leave
> fee-paying transactions in their mempool and create small blocks?

Defaults? Dumb designs? Most miners just use the default 750K blocks, as far as I can tell, other miners probably didnt see transactions relayed across several hops or so, and a select few miners are doing crazy things like making their blocks fit in a single packet to cross the gfw, but that is probably overkill and not well-researched.

>     > Until the block reward goes away, and assuming transaction fees become
>     > an important source of revenue for miners.
>     > I think it is too early to worry about that; see:
>     >
>     >    http://gavinandresen.ninja/when-the-block-reward-goes-away
>
>     You dont make any points here with which I can argue, but let me respond
>     with the reason /I/ think it is a problem worth thinking a little bit
>     about...If we increase the blocksize sufficiently such that transaction
>     fees are not the way in which miners make their money
>
>
> I'm not suggesting that we increase the blocksize sufficiently such that
> transaction fees are not the way in which miners make their money.
>
> I'm suggesting the blocksize be increased to 20MB (and then doubled
> every couple of years).

Do you have convincing evidence that at 20MB miners will be able to break even on transaction fees for a long time? (The answer is no because no one has any idea how bitcoin transaction volumes are going to scale, period.)

> And "in which miners make their money" is the wrong metric-- we want
> enough mining so the network to be "secure enough" against double-spends.

Sure, do you have a value of hashpower which is "secure enough" (which is a whole other rabbit hole to go down...).

>
>     , then either
>     miners are not being funded (ie hashpower has to drop to very little),
>     or the only people mining/funding miners are large orgs who are
>     "running" Bitcoin (ie the web wallets, payment processors, big
>     merchants, and exchanges of the world). Sadly, this is no longer a
>     decentralized Bitcoin and is, in fact, pretty much how the banking world
>     works today.
>
>
> Even if we end up in a world where only big companies can run full nodes
> (and I am NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT proposing any such thing), there is a
> difference-- you don't need permission to "open up a bank" on the
> Bitcoin network.
>

Oh? You mention at http://gavinandresen.ninja/bigger-blocks-another-way that "I struggle with wanting to stay true to Satoshi’s original vision of Bitcoin as a system that scales up to Visa-level transaction volume". That is in direct contradiction.

>     I'm not sure who, if anyone, claims Bitcoin is novel or interesting for
>     any reason other than its decentralization properties, and, in a world
>     which you are apparently proposing, the "natural" course of things is to
>     very strongly centralize.
>
>
>     >      * I'd very much like to see someone working on better scaling
>     >     technology, both in terms of development and in terms of getting
>     >     traction in the marketplace.
>     >
>     >
>     > Ok. What does this have to do with the max block size?
>     >
>     > Are you arguing that work won't happen if the max block size increases?
>
>     Yes, I am arguing that by increasing the blocksize the incentives to
>     actually make Bitcoin scale go away. Even if amazing technologies get
>     built, no one will have any reason to use them.
>
>
> Ok, I wrote about that here:
>
> http://gavinandresen.ninja/it-must-be-done-but-is-not-a-panacea
>

"it is not a panacea", but everyone in the community seems to be taking it as one. You've claimed many times that many of the big webwallet/payment processors/etc have been coming to you and saying they need bigger block sizes to continue operating. In reality, they dont, it just makes it easier.

Matt

On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 3:32 PM, Matt Corallo <bitcoin-list@bluematt•me> 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 relay out of China. By simple trial-and-error
> an individual large miner might notice that when they create larger
> blocks which fork off miners in other parts of the world, they get more
> income. Obviously forking off 50% of the network would be a rather
> extreme situation and assumes all kinds of simplified models, but it
> shows that the incentives here are very far from aligned, and your
> simplified good-behavior models are very far from convincing.
>

"good behavior" models? I intentionally modeled what should be a worst-case.

If you have a specific network topology you want to model, please email me details and I'll see what worst case is. Or, even better, take my simulation code and run it yourself (it's C++, easy to compile, easy to modify if you think it is too simple).

I get frustrated with all of the armchair "but what if..." how-many-miners-can-dance-on-the-head-of-a-pin arguments.

> >     I'll talk about transaction fees in a second, but there are several
> >     problems with this already. As pointed out in the original mail, gfw
> has
> >     already been known to interfere with Bitcoin P2P traffic. So now by
> >     "little" miners, you mean any miner who is not located in mainland
> >     China? Whats worse, the disadvantage is symmetric - little miners
> are at
> >     a disadvantage when *anyone* mines a bigger block

No, they're not. They are only at a disadvantage when THEY mine bigger blocks.

I guess I wasn't clear in the "do bigger miners have an advantage" blog post.

> ... I mentioned this in my
> original email as something which doesnt make me comfortable with 20MB
> blocks, but something which needs simulation and study, and might
> actually be just fine!
>

I spent last week doing simulation and study. Please, do your own simulation and study if you don't trust my results. There are big full-scale-bitcoin-network-simulations spinning up that should have results in a month or two, also, but there will ALWAYS be "but we didn't think about what if THIS happens" scenarios that can require more simulation and study.

>
> > Do you have another explanation for why miners choose to leave
> > fee-paying transactions in their mempool and create small blocks?
>
> Defaults? Dumb designs? Most miners just use the default 750K blocks, as
> far as I can tell, other miners probably didnt see transactions relayed
> across several hops or so, and a select few miners are doing crazy
> things like making their blocks fit in a single packet to cross the gfw,
> but that is probably overkill and not well-researched.
>

Last night's transaction volume test shows that most miners do just go
along with defaults:
  http://bitcoincore.org/~gavin/sizes_358594.html

> I'm not suggesting that we increase the blocksize sufficiently such that
> > transaction fees are not the way in which miners make their money.
> >
> > I'm suggesting the blocksize be increased to 20MB (and then doubled
> > every couple of years).
>
> Do you have convincing evidence that at 20MB miners will be able to
> break even on transaction fees for a long time? (The answer is no
> because no one has any idea how bitcoin transaction volumes are going to
> scale, period.)
>

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.

The question is "will there be enough fee+subsidy revenue to make it unprofitable for an attacker to buy or rent enough hashpower to double-spend."

It is obvious to me that bigger blocks make it more likely the answer to that question is "yes."

>
> > And "in which miners make their money" is the wrong metric-- we want
> > enough mining so the network to be "secure enough" against double-spends.
>
> Sure, do you have a value of hashpower which is "secure enough" (which
> is a whole other rabbit hole to go down...).
>

Mike Hearn wrote about that just a couple days ago:
  https://medium.com/@octskyward/hashing-7d04a887acc8
(See "How much is too much" section)

> > Even if we end up in a world where only big companies can run full nodes
> > (and I am NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT proposing any such thing), there is a
> > difference-- you don't need permission to "open up a bank" on the
> > Bitcoin network.
> >
>
> Oh? You mention at http://gavinandresen.ninja/bigger-blocks-another-way
> that "I struggle with wanting to stay true to Satoshi’s original vision
> of Bitcoin as a system that scales up to Visa-level transaction volume".
> That is in direct contradiction.
>

I have said repeatedly that if it was left completely up to me I would go back to Satoshi's original "there is no consensus-level blocksize limit".

20MB is a compromise.

 > Ok, I wrote about that here:

> >
> > http://gavinandresen.ninja/it-must-be-done-but-is-not-a-panacea
> >
>
> "it is not a panacea", but everyone in the community seems to be taking
> it as one. You've claimed many times that many of the big
> webwallet/payment processors/etc have been coming to you and saying they
> need bigger block sizes to continue operating. In reality, they dont, it
> just makes it easier
>
>

... and now you're pissing me off. I have NEVER EVER said that they need bigger blocks to continue operating. Please stop being overly dramatic.

They believe that bigger blocks are better for Bitcoin.

Brian Armstrong at Coinbase, in particular, said that smaller blocks drive centralization towards services like Coinbase ("look ma! No blockchain transaction!" <-- if you pay a Coinbase merchant from your Coinbase wallet), but he supports bigger blocks because more transactions on our existing decentralized network is better.

> 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 handle 10 MB blocks.

So this might be a solution which would satisfy both sides:
  *  people who are concerned about block size growth will have an
opportunity to stop it before it grows too much (e.g. with a soft fork),
  *  while people who want bigger blocks will get an equivalent of 25% per
year growth within the first 10 years, which isn't bad, is it?

So far I haven't heard any valid arguments against linear growth.

> 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 <alex.mizrahi@gmail•com> 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 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 handle 10 MB blocks.
>
> So this might be a solution which would satisfy both sides:
>   *  people who are concerned about block size growth will have an opportunity to stop it before it grows too much (e.g. with a soft fork),
>   *  while people who want bigger blocks will get an equivalent of 25% per year growth within the first 10 years, which isn't bad, is it?
>
> So far I haven't heard any valid arguments against linear growth.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge•net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development

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.  The static limit has led to the mistaken impression that this was some sort of guarantee or contract with miners.  That was not intended.

On 30 May 2015 3:07 pm, Alex Mizrahi <alex.mizrahi@gmail•com> 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 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 handle 10 MB blocks.

So this might be a solution which would satisfy both sides:
  *  people who are concerned about block size growth will have an opportunity to stop it before it grows too much (e.g. with a soft fork),
  *  while people who want bigger blocks will get an equivalent of 25% per year growth within the first 10 years, which isn't bad, is it?

So far I haven't heard any valid arguments against linear growth.

> 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. Exponential growth: Linear growth is better at modelling diminishing
returns, that is, risk that it grows too much is much smaller. At the same
time initially it will grow faster than reasonable exponential models.
   E.g. linear year-over-year relative growth:    100% 50% 33% 25% ...10%
   While exponential one which gives the same result in 10 years:
   25% 25% ... 25%
   This is on the same scale, but exponential starts slower than we want at
start (1.25 MB will be too little for 2016 as we already see fully filled 1
MB blocks), but goes a bit too fast in the long term. It's highly unlikely
we'll see bandwidth growing 10x each 10 years in the long term.

2. Single step increase: an obvious advantage is that linear growth gives us time to adapt to near realities, time to change something if there is an unwanted effects, etc. At the same a single step is not a long-term solution. While a slow-but-steady growth might be.

3. Adaptive solutions (e.g. limit depends on the last N blocks or something
of that nature):
  The problem with them is that they are  rather complex, and also:
  3.1. prone to manipulation: somebody might try to push the limit if it
will favor him in future
  3.2. possibility of a positive feedback loop.
  3.3. possibility of an unhealthy game-theoretic dynamics

The main problem is that we do not understand game theoretic aspects of bitcoin mining in presence of various real-world factors such as block propagation delays. Thus we can't design a proper adaptive solution.

There is no perfect solution to this problem as we cannot predict the future and our understanding is limited. But among the 5 alternatives (linear, exponential, single step, adaptive, no limit), linear seems to be the best option at this point as it's both quite safe and doesn't stunt growth too much.

> bitcoin is really really small right now, any sign of real adoption could

make it grow 100x or even more in a matter of weeks.

This is certainly possible, but the thing is:

1) this can't be predicted; 2) this will be a serious problem for many bitcoind installations; 3) it's not necessarily a healthy thing, perhaps it will grow 100x in a matter of weeks, and then will go to zero in matter of weeks as well.

So I don't think that sudden growth spurts is something we should take into account on the planning stage. If anything we'd like to prevent them from happening, slow growth is usually better.

>
> 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://medium.com/@octskyward/hashing-7d04a887acc8

But the solution he's proposing is ridiculously bad and unsound: he expects business owners to donate large sums of money towards mining. If it comes to this, what sane business owner will donate, say, 100 BTC to miners instead of seeking some alternatives? Proof-of-stake coins are already there. I'm well aware of theoretical issues with PoS security, but those theoretical issues aren't as bad as donation-funded cryptocurrency security.

But you know what works? Mining fees + block size limit. Users and merchants are interested in their transactions being confirmed, but block size limit won't allow it to turn into a race to bottom. This is actually game-theoretically sound.

>   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.
>

This means that miners will control it, and miners couldn't care less about things like decentralization and about problems of ordinary users. This means that in this scenario Bitcoin will be 100% controlled by few huge-ass mining operations.

Possibly a single operation. We already saw GHASH.IO using 51% of total hashpower. Is that what you want?

Miners are NOT benevolent. This was already demonstrated. They are greedy.

On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 9:57 PM, Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail•com> wrote:

>> Bad miners could attack us and the network with artificial
>> big blocks.
>
>
> How?
>
> I ran some simulations, and I could not find a network topology where a big
> miner producing big blocks could cause a loss of profit to another miner
> (big or small) producing smaller blocks:
>
> http://gavinandresen.ninja/are-bigger-blocks-better-for-bigger-miners
>
> (the 0.3% advantage I DID find was for the situation where EVERYBODY was
> producing big blocks).

If someone propagate a 20MB block, it will take at best 6 seconds for us to receive to verify it at current configuration, result of one percent orphan rate increase. Or, we can mine the next block only on the previous block's header, in this case, the network would see many more transaction-less blocks.

Our orphan rate is about 0.5% over the past few months. If the network floods 20MB blocks, it can be well above 2%. Besides bandwidth, A 20MB block could contain an average of 50000 transactions, hundred of thousands of sigops, Do you have an estimate how long it takes on the submitblock rpccall?

For references, our 30Mbps bandwidth in Beijing costs us 1350 dollars per month. We also use Aliyun and Linode cloud services for block propagation. As of May 2015, the price is 0.13 U.S. dollars per GB for 100Mbps connectivity at Aliyun. For a single cross-border TCP connection, it would be certainly far slower than 12.5 MB/s.

I think we can accept 5MB block at most.

(sorry forgot to cc to the mailing list)

Thank you very much Chun Wang for the details below.

While I'm based in HK, but I'd like to propose that the miners in China work together with Gavin and others to run an experiment of sorts next month to gather more details for the community.

p.

On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 9:31 AM, Chun Wang <1240902@gmail•com> wrote:

> On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 9:57 PM, Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail•com>
> wrote:
> >> Bad miners could attack us and the network with artificial
> >> big blocks.
> >
> >
> > How?
> >
> > I ran some simulations, and I could not find a network topology where a
> big
> > miner producing big blocks could cause a loss of profit to another miner
> > (big or small) producing smaller blocks:
> >
> > http://gavinandresen.ninja/are-bigger-blocks-better-for-bigger-miners
> >
> > (the 0.3% advantage I DID find was for the situation where EVERYBODY was
> > producing big blocks).
>
> If someone propagate a 20MB block, it will take at best 6 seconds for
> us to receive to verify it at current configuration, result of one
> percent orphan rate increase. Or, we can mine the next block only on
> the previous block's header, in this case, the network would see many
> more transaction-less blocks.
>
> Our orphan rate is about 0.5% over the past few months. If the network
> floods 20MB blocks, it can be well above 2%. Besides bandwidth, A 20MB
> block could contain an average of 50000 transactions, hundred of
> thousands of sigops, Do you have an estimate how long it takes on the
> submitblock rpccall?
>
> For references, our 30Mbps bandwidth in Beijing costs us 1350 dollars
> per month. We also use Aliyun and Linode cloud services for block
> propagation. As of May 2015, the price is 0.13 U.S. dollars per GB for
> 100Mbps connectivity at Aliyun. For a single cross-border TCP
> connection, it would be certainly far slower than 12.5 MB/s.
>
> I think we can accept 5MB block at most.
>
> (sorry forgot to cc to the mailing list)
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge•net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>

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' technical limit could also be used conjunction with the simple periodic soft dynamic limit adjustment (e.g. 1.5x of moving average) as discussed recently. So that the combination provides for growth, with fee pressure, up until if/when the technical hard limit is hit. And if we keep hitting the hard limit that signals a market demand for ancillary layers to be built out, that has been missing until now.

On Sun, 2015-05-31 at 01:05 +0300, 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 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 handle 10 MB blocks.
>
>
> So this might be a solution which would satisfy both sides:
>   *  people who are concerned about block size growth will have an
> opportunity to stop it before it grows too much (e.g. with a soft
> fork),
>   *  while people who want bigger blocks will get an equivalent of 25%
> per year growth within the first 10 years, which isn't bad, is it?
>
>
> So far I haven't heard any valid arguments against linear growth.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge•net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development

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 right now. I know most blocks would not be 20 MB
> over night. But only if a small fraction of blocks more than 10 MB, it
> could dramatically increase of our orphan rate, result of higher fee
> to miners. Bad miners could attack us and the network with artificial
> big blocks. As yhou know, other Chinese pools, AntPool, BW, they
> produces ASIC chips and mining mostly with their own machines. They do
> not care about a few percent of orphan increase as much as we do. They
> would continue their zero fee policy. We would be the biggest loser.
> As the exchanges had taught us, zero fee is not health to the network.
> Also we have to redevelop our block broadcast logic. Server bandwidth
> is a lot more expensive in China. And the Internet is slow. Currently
> China has more than 50% of mining power, if block size increases, I
> bet European and American pools could suffer more than us. We think
> the max block size should be increased, but must be increased
> smoothly, 2 MB first, and then after one or two years 4 MB, then 8 MB,
> and so on. Thanks.

Great to hear from you!

Yeah, I'm pretty surprised myself that Gavin never accepted the compromises offered by others in this space for a slow growth solution, rather than starting with over an order of magnitude blocksize increase. This is particularly surprising when his own calculations - after correcting an artithmetic error - came up with 8MB blocks rather than 20MB.

Something important to note in Gavin Andresen's analysises of this issue is that he's using quite optimistic scenarios for how nodes are connected to each other. For instance, assuming that connections between miners are direct is a very optimistic assumption that depends on a permissive, unregulated, environment where miners co-operate with each other - obviously that's easily subject to change! Better block broadcasting logic helps this in the "co-operation" case, but there's not much it can do in the worst-case.

Unrelated: feel free to contact me directly if you have any questions re: the BIP66 upgrade; I hear you guys were planning on upgrading your mining nodes soon.

On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 9:31 PM, Chun Wang <1240902@gmail•com> wrote:

>
> If someone propagate a 20MB block, it will take at best 6 seconds for
> us to receive to verify it at current configuration, result of one
> percent orphan rate increase.

That orphan rate increase will go to whoever is producing the 20MB blocks, NOT you.

Or, we can mine the next block only on

> the previous block's header, in this case, the network would see many
> more transaction-less blocks.
>

Are you sure that is the best strategy? If a big block is slow to propagate, I suspect it will be better to punish the miner that created it by refusing to build on it until it has been fully validated.

I'll try to find time to run a couple of simulations.

>
> Our orphan rate is about 0.5% over the past few months. If the network
> floods 20MB blocks, it can be well above 2%. Besides bandwidth, A 20MB
> block could contain an average of 50000 transactions, hundred of
> thousands of sigops, Do you have an estimate how long it takes on the
> submitblock rpccall?
>

I can benchmark it. It should be pretty fast, and sipa has a couple of patches pending to make the UTXO cache much faster.

It can be fast because the vast majority of the work of validating all those transactions can happen as they are received into the memory pool.

> For references, our 30Mbps bandwidth in Beijing costs us 1350 dollars
> per month.

You should be able to handle 20MB blocks no problem; if I round up to 100MB per block that works out to 1.3Mbps.

We also use Aliyun and Linode cloud services for block

> propagation. As of May 2015, the price is 0.13 U.S. dollars per GB for
> 100Mbps connectivity at Aliyun.

That speed will handle 20MB blocks no problem.

If each 20MB block is 100MB of data up/down the wire (I'm vastly over-estimating, after optimization it should be 40MB) then you'll be paying...uhhh:

0.1 GB / block-data-on-wire * 144 blocks/day * 30.5 days/month * 0.13 $ / GB = $57

Less than $2 per day in bandwidth, surely you can afford that.

> For a single cross-border TCP
> connection, it would be certainly far slower than 12.5 MB/s.

That's OK, you'll 1.3Mbps or less.

> I think we can accept 5MB block at most.
>

Are you worried about paying too much, or do 20MB blocks "feel like too much" ?

On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 3:05 AM, Peter Todd <pete@petertodd•org> 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.

> Something important to note in Gavin Andresen's analysises of this issue
> is that he's using quite optimistic scenarios for how nodes are
> connected to each other.

NO I AM NOT.

I simulated a variety of connectivities; see the .cfg files at
  https://github.com/gavinandresen/bitcoin_miningsim

The results I give in the "are bigger blocks better" blog post are for WORST CASE connectivity (one dominant big miner, multiple little miners, big miner connects to only 30% of little miners, but all the little miners connected directly to each other).

> For instance, assuming that connections between
> miners are direct is a very optimistic assumption

Again, I did not simulate all miners directly connected to each other.

I will note that miners are VERY HIGHLY connected today. It is in their best interest to be highly connected to each other.

> that depends on a
> permissive, unregulated, environment where miners co-operate with each
> other - obviously that's easily subject to change!

Really? How is that easily subject to change? If it is easily subject to change, do bigger blocks have any effect? Why are 1MB blocks not subject to change?

I talk about "what if your government bans Bitcoin entirely" here:
   http://gavinandresen.ninja/big-blocks-and-tor

... and the issues are essentially the same, independent of block size.

On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 9:31 PM, Chun Wang <1240902@gmail•com> wrote:

>
> If someone propagate a 20MB block, it will take at best 6 seconds for
> us to receive to verify it at current configuration, result of one
> percent orphan rate increase.

That orphan rate increase will go to whoever is producing the 20MB blocks, NOT you.

Or, we can mine the next block only on

> the previous block's header, in this case, the network would see many
> more transaction-less blocks.
>

Are you sure that is the best strategy? If a big block is slow to propagate, I suspect it will be better to punish the miner that created it by refusing to build on it until it has been fully validated.

I'll try to find time to run a couple of simulations.

>
> Our orphan rate is about 0.5% over the past few months. If the network
> floods 20MB blocks, it can be well above 2%. Besides bandwidth, A 20MB
> block could contain an average of 50000 transactions, hundred of
> thousands of sigops, Do you have an estimate how long it takes on the
> submitblock rpccall?
>

I can benchmark it. It should be pretty fast, and sipa has a couple of patches pending to make the UTXO cache much faster.

It can be fast because the vast majority of the work of validating all those transactions can happen as they are received into the memory pool.

> For references, our 30Mbps bandwidth in Beijing costs us 1350 dollars
> per month.

You should be able to handle 20MB blocks no problem; if I round up to 100MB per block that works out to 1.3Mbps.

We also use Aliyun and Linode cloud services for block

> propagation. As of May 2015, the price is 0.13 U.S. dollars per GB for
> 100Mbps connectivity at Aliyun.

That speed will handle 20MB blocks no problem.

If each 20MB block is 100MB of data up/down the wire (I'm vastly over-estimating, after optimization it should be 40MB) then you'll be paying...uhhh:

0.1 GB / block-data-on-wire * 144 blocks/day * 30.5 days/month * 0.13 $ / GB = $57

Less than $2 per day in bandwidth.

> For a single cross-border TCP
> connection, it would be certainly far slower than 12.5 MB/s.

That's OK, you'll 1.3Mbps or less.

> I think we can accept 5MB block at most.
>

Are you worried about paying too much, or do 20MB blocks "feel like too much" ?

Aren't you calculating bandwidth for a singly-connected node? A "highly connected" miner could have 30-100 node connections so you probably need to increase your traffic estimates by that factor.

I.e. For 100MB blocks, 30-100 Mbps and $60-$100 per day data costs.

> You should be able to handle 20MB blocks no problem; if I round up to
> 100MB per block that works out to 1.3Mbps.
>
>
>         We also use Aliyun and Linode cloud services for block
>         propagation. As of May 2015, the price is 0.13 U.S. dollars
>         per GB for
>         100Mbps connectivity at Aliyun.
>
>
> That speed will handle 20MB blocks no problem.
>
>
> If each 20MB block is 100MB of data up/down the wire (I'm vastly
> over-estimating, after optimization it should be 40MB) then you'll be
> paying...uhhh:
>
>
> 0.1 GB / block-data-on-wire * 144 blocks/day * 30.5 days/month * 0.13
> $ / GB = $57
>
>
> Less than $2 per day in bandwidth.
>
>         For a single cross-border TCP
>         connection, it would be certainly far slower than 12.5 MB/s.
>
>
> That's OK, you'll 1.3Mbps or less

> --
> --
> Gavin Andresen
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge•net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development

> That orphan rate increase will go to whoever is producing the 20MB blocks,
> NOT you.
>

This depends on how miners are connected.

E.g. suppose there are three miners, A and B have fast connectivity between then, and C has a slow network. Suppose that A miners a block and B receives it in 1 second. C receives it in 6 seconds. This means that blocks mined by C during these ~5 seconds will be orphaned because B gets A's block first.

> On 31 May 2015, at 13:52, Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail•com> wrote:
>
> On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 9:31 PM, Chun Wang <1240902@gmail•com <mailto:1240902@gmail.com>> wrote:
> If someone propagate a 20MB block, it will take at best 6 seconds for
> us to receive to verify it at current configuration, result of one
> percent orphan rate increase.
>
> That orphan rate increase will go to whoever is producing the 20MB blocks, NOT you.

There's an interesting incentives question if the mining fees ever become large enough to be interesting. Given two potential blocks on which to build then for the best interests of the system we'd want miners to select the block that confirmed the largest number of transactions since that puts less pressure on the network later. This is at odds with the incentives for our would-be block maker though because the incentive for mining would be to use whichever block left the largest potential fees available; that's generally going to be the smaller of the two.

This, of course, only gets worse as the block reward reduces and fees become the dominant way for miners to be paid (and my hypothesis that eventually this could lead to miners trying to deliberately orphan earlier blocks to "steal" fees because the fixed block reward is no longer the dominant part of their income).

When coupled with the block propagation delay problem increasing the risk of orphan races I'm pretty sure that this actually leads to miners having an incentive to continually mine smaller blocks, and that's aside from the question of whether smaller blocks will push up fees (which also benefits miners).

Cheers, Dave

I will abstain on this wrangle of "when",

Instead I'd like to address some of the network topology health issues that's been brought up in this debate.

Due to how blocks are being broadcast by miners at the moment, it is not difficult to find the origin node of these blocks. These more influential origin nodes are a minority, about <100 out of ~6000, <2%. These data points are important to certain attack vectors. It is highly recommended that pools adopt broadcast logic that rotates broadcasting nodes and increase their node count.. Eloipool has this implanted for those seeking to adopt/see it in action in the wild.

China is a particular worse-case due to the sporadic nature of their internet infrastructure, especially connecting from/to outside of gfw, on a average node-walk I can get up to a 10% difference while I know for a fact some of the nodes shown to be down are up.

In F2Pool's case, I see 6 replay nodes, I don't know if that's enough or that's all the nodes F2Pool runs, but it may be beneficial to set up multi-homing with shadowsocks over mptcp to increase the stability. also see if you can get a CERNET connection to be part of your rotations since their backbone is quite good.

comments, question and grievances welcome.

On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 9:31 PM, Chun Wang <1240902@gmail•com> wrote:

> On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 9:57 PM, Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail•com>
> wrote:
> >> Bad miners could attack us and the network with artificial
> >> big blocks.
> >
> >
> > How?
> >
> > I ran some simulations, and I could not find a network topology where a
> big
> > miner producing big blocks could cause a loss of profit to another miner
> > (big or small) producing smaller blocks:
> >
> > http://gavinandresen.ninja/are-bigger-blocks-better-for-bigger-miners
> >
> > (the 0.3% advantage I DID find was for the situation where EVERYBODY was
> > producing big blocks).
>
> If someone propagate a 20MB block, it will take at best 6 seconds for
> us to receive to verify it at current configuration, result of one
> percent orphan rate increase. Or, we can mine the next block only on
> the previous block's header, in this case, the network would see many
> more transaction-less blocks.
>
> Our orphan rate is about 0.5% over the past few months. If the network
> floods 20MB blocks, it can be well above 2%. Besides bandwidth, A 20MB
> block could contain an average of 50000 transactions, hundred of
> thousands of sigops, Do you have an estimate how long it takes on the
> submitblock rpccall?
>
> For references, our 30Mbps bandwidth in Beijing costs us 1350 dollars
> per month. We also use Aliyun and Linode cloud services for block
> propagation. As of May 2015, the price is 0.13 U.S. dollars per GB for
> 100Mbps connectivity at Aliyun. For a single cross-border TCP
> connection, it would be certainly far slower than 12.5 MB/s.
>
> I think we can accept 5MB block at most.
>
> (sorry forgot to cc to the mailing list)
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge•net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>

On May 30, 2015 10:38 PM, "Gavin Andresen" <gavinandresen@gmail•com> 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 thought experiment:

Subsidy is gone, all the block reward comes from fees. Miner A has great connectivity and mines 20 MB blocks, with an average of 20 btc per block. Miner B has a connectivity such that 2 MB blocks puts it on a reasonable orphan rate, so it gets an average of 2 btc per block mined. But the difficulty is the same for all and it can rise up to miner A breaking even after energy costs. Will miner B be profitable with this setup? The answer is no and miner B will just go out of business. In that sense too, bigger blocks mean more mining centralization.

On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 10:34 AM, Yifu Guo <yifu@coinapex•com> wrote:

> comments, question and grievances welcome.
>

Thanks for chiming in with facts, Yifu!

Do you have any real-world data on latency/bandwidth/cost through the gfw ? Chung Wang's post was very helpful to get away from hypotheticals to "what would it actually cost."

On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 10:46 AM, Jorge Timón <jtimon@jtimon•cc> 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-block-reward-goes-away

On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 9:45 AM, Alex Mizrahi <alex.mizrahi@gmail•com> wrote:

>
>
>> That orphan rate increase will go to whoever is producing the 20MB
>> blocks, NOT you.
>>
>
> This depends on how miners are connected.
>
> E.g. suppose there are three miners, A and B have fast connectivity
> between then, and C has a slow network.
> Suppose that A miners a block and B receives it in 1 second. C receives it
> in 6 seconds.
> This means that blocks mined by C during these ~5 seconds will be orphaned
> because B gets A's block first.
>

Yes, if you are on a slow network then you are at a (slight) disadvantage. So?

There are lots of equations that go into the "is mining profitable" equation: cost of power, Internet cost and connectivity, cost of capital, access to technology other miners don't have, inexpensive labor or rent, inexpensive cooling, ability to use waste heat...

That's good. An equation with lots of variables has lots of different maximum solutions, and that means better decentralization -- there is less likely to be one perfect place or way to mine.

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 this "scaling by sacrificing decentralization", but the answer can't be "that's to far away in the future to worry about it, right now as far as we think we can using orphan rate as the only criterion". On May 31, 2015 4:49 PM, "Gavin Andresen" <gavinandresen@gmail•com> wrote:

> On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 10:46 AM, Jorge Timón <jtimon@jtimon•cc> 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-block-reward-goes-away
>
>
> --
> --
> Gavin Andresen
>

On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 10:59 AM, Jorge Timón <jtimon@jtimon•cc> 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 centralization
>

Sorry, but that's ridiculous.

If Miner B is leaving 18BTC per block on the table because they have bad connectivity, then they need to pay for better connectivity.

If you are arguing "I should be able to mine on a 56K modem connection from the middle of the Sahara" then we're going to have to agree to disagree.

So: what is your specific proposal for minimum requirements for connectivity to run a full node? The 20MB number comes from estimating costs to run a full node, and as my back-and-forth to Chang Wung shows, the costs are not excessive.

On May 31, 2015 5:08 PM, "Gavin Andresen" <gavinandresen@gmail•com> wrote:

>
> On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 10:59 AM, Jorge Timón <jtimon@jtimon•cc> 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 centralization

>
> Sorry, but that's ridiculous.
>
> If Miner B is leaving 18BTC per block on the table because they have bad

connectivity, then they need to pay for better connectivity.

Well, I was assuming they just can't upgrade their connection (without moving thei operations to another place). Maybe that assumption is ridiculous as well.

> If you are arguing "I should be able to mine on a 56K modem connection

from the middle of the Sahara" then we're going to have to agree to disagree.

No, I'm not suggesting that.

> So: what is your specific proposal for minimum requirements for

connectivity to run a full node? The 20MB number comes from estimating costs to run a full node, and as my back-and-forth to Chang Wung shows, the costs are not excessive.

Well, you were I think assuming a new desktop connecting from somewhere in the US. I would be more confortable with an eee pc from a hotel in India, for example. But yeah, targeting some concrete minimum specs seems like the right approach for deciding "how far to go when increasing centralization".

But "hitting the limit will be chaos" seems to imply that completely removing the consensus maximum blocksize is the only logical solution. What happens when we hit the limit next time? When do we stop kicking the can down the road? When do we voluntarily get that "chaos"? Again, "that's too far away in the future to worry about it" is not a very conving answer to me.

On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 9:31 AM, gb <kiwigb@yahoo•com> wrote:

> Aren't you calculating bandwidth for a singly-connected node? A "highly
> connected" miner could have 30-100 node connections so you probably need
> to increase your traffic estimates by that factor.
>
> I.e. For 100MB blocks, 30-100 Mbps and $60-$100 per day data costs.
>

No, randomly connected gossip networks (which is what the Bitcoin p2p network is) don't work that way, bandwidth is (roughly) O(N) where N is the number of bytes relayed to everybody.

(it is actually a small multiple of N, because of the overhead of 'inv' messages, and if we ever get really serious about scaling up we'll need to fix the protocol to reduce that overhead, but that won't be a problem for years).

>
> Yes, if you are on a slow network then you are at a (slight) disadvantage.
> So?
>

Chun mentioned that his pool is on a slow network, and thus bigger blocks give it an disadvantage. (Orphan rate is proportional to block size.) You said that no, on contrary those who make big blocks have a disadvantage. And now you say that yes, this disadvantage exist.

Did you just lie to Chun?

He also said that the equation for miners has many variables, as it should. There is no disadvantage if the network speed is the same between the miners. If there is a difference in network speed, the miner is incentivized to invest in their network infrastructure.

2015-05-31 23:55 GMT+01:00 Alex Mizrahi <alex.mizrahi@gmail•com>:

>> Yes, if you are on a slow network then you are at a (slight) disadvantage.
>> So?
>
>
> Chun mentioned that his pool is on a slow network, and thus bigger blocks
> give it an disadvantage. (Orphan rate is proportional to block size.)
> You said that no, on contrary those who make big blocks have a disadvantage.
> And now you say that yes, this disadvantage exist.
>
> Did you just lie to Chun?
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge•net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>

On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 7:23 AM, Ricardo Filipe <ricardojdfilipe@gmail•com> wrote:

> He also said that the equation for miners has many variables, as it
> should. There is no disadvantage if the network speed is the same
> between the miners.

Hi,

Is that an assumption?

If there is a difference in network speed, the

> miner is incentivized to invest in their network infrastructure.
>

Perhaps it's best not to assume that investing in Internet network infrastructure's a free or open market everywhere.

p.

>
> 2015-05-31 23:55 GMT+01:00 Alex Mizrahi <alex.mizrahi@gmail•com>:
> >> Yes, if you are on a slow network then you are at a (slight)
> disadvantage.
> >> So?
> >
> >
> > Chun mentioned that his pool is on a slow network, and thus bigger blocks
> > give it an disadvantage. (Orphan rate is proportional to block size.)
> > You said that no, on contrary those who make big blocks have a
> disadvantage.
> > And now you say that yes, this disadvantage exist.
> >
> > Did you just lie to Chun?
> >
> >
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Bitcoin-development mailing list
> > Bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge•net
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
> >
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge•net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>

2015-06-01 0:40 GMT+01:00 Pindar Wong <pindar.wong@gmail•com>:

>
>
> On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 7:23 AM, Ricardo Filipe <ricardojdfilipe@gmail•com>
> wrote:
>>
>> He also said that the equation for miners has many variables, as it
>> should. There is no disadvantage if the network speed is the same
>> between the miners.
>
>
> Hi,
>
> Is that an assumption?

no, let me rephrase: The disadvantage alex refers to only exists if miners do not have the same network speed.

>
>> If there is a difference in network speed, the
>> miner is incentivized to invest in their network infrastructure.
>
>
> Perhaps it's best not to  assume that investing in Internet network
> infrastructure's a free or open market everywhere.

Just like easy ASIC access, low price electricity, etc are not a free and open market.

>
> p.
>
>>
>>
>> 2015-05-31 23:55 GMT+01:00 Alex Mizrahi <alex.mizrahi@gmail•com>:
>> >> Yes, if you are on a slow network then you are at a (slight)
>> >> disadvantage.
>> >> So?
>> >
>> >
>> > Chun mentioned that his pool is on a slow network, and thus bigger
>> > blocks
>> > give it an disadvantage. (Orphan rate is proportional to block size.)
>> > You said that no, on contrary those who make big blocks have a
>> > disadvantage.
>> > And now you say that yes, this disadvantage exist.
>> >
>> > Did you just lie to Chun?
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Bitcoin-development mailing list
>> > Bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge•net
>> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>> >
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> _______________________________________________
>> Bitcoin-development mailing list
>> Bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge•net
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>
>

On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 7:58 AM, Ricardo Filipe <ricardojdfilipe@gmail•com> wrote:

> 2015-06-01 0:40 GMT+01:00 Pindar Wong <pindar.wong@gmail•com>:
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 7:23 AM, Ricardo Filipe <
> ricardojdfilipe@gmail•com>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> He also said that the equation for miners has many variables, as it
> >> should. There is no disadvantage if the network speed is the same
> >> between the miners.
> >
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > Is that an assumption?
> no, let me rephrase: The disadvantage alex refers to only exists if
> miners do not have the same network speed.
>
> >
> >> If there is a difference in network speed, the
> >> miner is incentivized to invest in their network infrastructure.
> >
> >
> > Perhaps it's best not to  assume that investing in Internet network
> > infrastructure's a free or open market everywhere.
> Just like easy ASIC access, low price electricity, etc are not a free
> and open market.
>

-- point well made and taken.

p.

>
> >
> > p.
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> 2015-05-31 23:55 GMT+01:00 Alex Mizrahi <alex.mizrahi@gmail•com>:
> >> >> Yes, if you are on a slow network then you are at a (slight)
> >> >> disadvantage.
> >> >> So?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Chun mentioned that his pool is on a slow network, and thus bigger
> >> > blocks
> >> > give it an disadvantage. (Orphan rate is proportional to block size.)
> >> > You said that no, on contrary those who make big blocks have a
> >> > disadvantage.
> >> > And now you say that yes, this disadvantage exist.
> >> >
> >> > Did you just lie to Chun?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> >
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > Bitcoin-development mailing list
> >> > Bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge•net
> >> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> >> Bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge•net
> >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
> >
> >
>

> He also said that the equation for miners has many variables, as it
> should.

He only said that AFTER I called him on his bullshit. Before that he wrote it like there is 100% certainty that only the party producing big blocks is punished:

"That orphan rate increase will go to whoever is producing the 20MB blocks, NOT you."

> There is no disadvantage if the network speed is the same
> between the miners.

Which is exactly not the situation they were discussing. This assumption is not reasonable.

Whilst it would be nice if miners in China can carry on forever regardless of their internet situation, nobody has any inherent "right" to mine if they can't do the job - if miners in China can't get the trivial amounts of bandwidth required through their firewall and end up being outcompeted then OK, too bad, we'll have to carry on without them.

But I'm not sure why it should be a big deal. They can always run a node on a server in Taiwan and connect the hardware to it via a VPN or so.

On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 6:13 PM, Mike Hearn <mike@plan99•net> wrote:

> Whilst it would be nice if miners in China can carry on forever regardless
> of their internet situation, nobody has any inherent "right" to mine if
> they can't do the job - if miners in China can't get the trivial amounts of
> bandwidth required through their firewall and end up being outcompeted then
> OK, too bad, we'll have to carry on without them.
>

I'd rather think of mining as a responsibility than a right per se, but you're right in so far as it's competitive and self-correcting.

>
> But I'm not sure why it should be a big deal. They can always run a node
> on a server in Taiwan and connect the hardware to it via a VPN or so.
>
>

Let's agree to disagree on this point.

p.

On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 6:13 PM, Mike Hearn <mike@plan99•net> wrote:

> Whilst it would be nice if miners in China can carry on forever regardless
> of their internet situation, nobody has any inherent "right" to mine if they
> can't do the job - if miners in China can't get the trivial amounts of
> bandwidth required through their firewall and end up being outcompeted then
> OK, too bad, we'll have to carry on without them.
>
> But I'm not sure why it should be a big deal. They can always run a node on
> a server in Taiwan and connect the hardware to it via a VPN or so.

Ignorant. You seem do not understand the current situation. We suffered from orphans a lot when we started in 2013. It is now your turn. If Western miners do not find a China-based VPN into China, or if Western pools do not manage to improve their connectivity to China, or run a node in China, it would be them to have higher orphans, not us. Because we have 50%+.

I think it would be helpful if we could all *chill* and focus on the solid engineering necessary to make Bitcoin succeed.

p.

On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 7:02 PM, Chun Wang <1240902@gmail•com> wrote:

> On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 6:13 PM, Mike Hearn <mike@plan99•net> wrote:
> > Whilst it would be nice if miners in China can carry on forever
> regardless
> > of their internet situation, nobody has any inherent "right" to mine if
> they
> > can't do the job - if miners in China can't get the trivial amounts of
> > bandwidth required through their firewall and end up being outcompeted
> then
> > OK, too bad, we'll have to carry on without them.
> >
> > But I'm not sure why it should be a big deal. They can always run a node
> on
> > a server in Taiwan and connect the hardware to it via a VPN or so.
>
> Ignorant. You seem do not understand the current situation. We
> suffered from orphans a lot when we started in 2013. It is now your
> turn. If Western miners do not find a China-based VPN into China, or
> if Western pools do not manage to improve their connectivity to China,
> or run a node in China, it would be them to have higher orphans, not
> us. Because we have 50%+.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge•net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>

WOW!!!! Way to burn your biggest adopters who put your transactions into the chain.......what a douche. ________________________________ From: Mike Hearn<mailto:mike@plan99.net> Sent: ‎1/‎06/‎2015 8:15 PM To: Alex Mizrahi<mailto:alex.mizrahi@gmail.com> Cc: Bitcoin Dev<mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net> Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Fwd: Block Size Increase Requirements

Whilst it would be nice if miners in China can carry on forever regardless of their internet situation, nobody has any inherent "right" to mine if they can't do the job - if miners in China can't get the trivial amounts of bandwidth required through their firewall and end up being outcompeted then OK, too bad, we'll have to carry on without them.

But I'm not sure why it should be a big deal. They can always run a node on a server in Taiwan and connect the hardware to it via a VPN or so.

I cannot believe why Gavin (who seems to have difficulty to spell my name correctly.) insists on his 20MB proposal regardless the community. BIP66 has been introduced for a long time and no one knows when the 95% goal can be met. This change to the block max size must take one year or more to be adopted. We should increase the limit and increase it now. 20MB is simply too big and too risky, sometimes we need compromise and push things forward. I agree with any solution lower than 10MB in its first two years.

On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 7:02 PM, Chun Wang <1240902@gmail•com> wrote:

> On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 6:13 PM, Mike Hearn <mike@plan99•net> wrote:
>> Whilst it would be nice if miners in China can carry on forever regardless
>> of their internet situation, nobody has any inherent "right" to mine if they
>> can't do the job - if miners in China can't get the trivial amounts of
>> bandwidth required through their firewall and end up being outcompeted then
>> OK, too bad, we'll have to carry on without them.
>>
>> But I'm not sure why it should be a big deal. They can always run a node on
>> a server in Taiwan and connect the hardware to it via a VPN or so.
>
> Ignorant. You seem do not understand the current situation. We
> suffered from orphans a lot when we started in 2013. It is now your
> turn. If Western miners do not find a China-based VPN into China, or
> if Western pools do not manage to improve their connectivity to China,
> or run a node in China, it would be them to have higher orphans, not
> us. Because we have 50%+.

On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 7:02 PM, Chun Wang <1240902@gmail•com> wrote:

> On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 6:13 PM, Mike Hearn <mike@plan99•net> wrote:
>> Whilst it would be nice if miners in China can carry on forever regardless
>> of their internet situation, nobody has any inherent "right" to mine if they
>> can't do the job - if miners in China can't get the trivial amounts of
>> bandwidth required through their firewall and end up being outcompeted then
>> OK, too bad, we'll have to carry on without them.
>>
>> But I'm not sure why it should be a big deal. They can always run a node on
>> a server in Taiwan and connect the hardware to it via a VPN or so.
>
> Ignorant. You seem do not understand the current situation. We
> suffered from orphans a lot when we started in 2013. It is now your
> turn. If Western miners do not find a China-based VPN into China, or
> if Western pools do not manage to improve their connectivity to China,
> or run a node in China, it would be them to have higher orphans, not
> us. Because we have 50%+.

On Mon, Jun 01, 2015 at 06:42:05PM +0800, Pindar Wong wrote:

> On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 6:13 PM, Mike Hearn <mike@plan99•net> wrote:
>
> > Whilst it would be nice if miners in China can carry on forever regardless
> > of their internet situation, nobody has any inherent "right" to mine if
> > they can't do the job - if miners in China can't get the trivial amounts of
> > bandwidth required through their firewall and end up being outcompeted then
> > OK, too bad, we'll have to carry on without them.
> >
>
> I'd rather think of mining as a responsibility than a right per se, but
> you're right in so far as it's competitive and self-correcting.

It's important to remember that the service Bitcoin miners are providing us is *not* transaction validation, but rather decentralization. Validation is something every full node does already; there's no shortage of it. What's tricky is designing a Bitcoin protocol that creates the appropriate incentives for mining to remain decentralized, so we get good value for the large amount of money being sent to miners.

I've often likened this task to building a robot to go to the grocery store to buy milk for you. If that robot doesn't have a nose, before long store owners are going to realise it can't tell the difference between unspoilt and spoilt milk, and you're going to get ripped off paying for a bunch of spoiled milk.

Designing a Bitcoin protocol where we expect "competition" to result in smaller miners in more geographically decentralized places to get outcompeted by larger miners who are more geographically centralized gets us bad value for our money. Sure it's "self-correcting", but not in a way that we want.

> > But I'm not sure why it should be a big deal. They can always run a node
> > on a server in Taiwan and connect the hardware to it via a VPN or so.
> >
> >
>  Let's agree to disagree on this point.

Note how that VPN, and likely VPS it's connected too, immediately adds another one or two points of failure to the whole system. Not only does this decrease reliability, it also decreases security by making attacks significantly easier - VPS security is orders of magnitude worse than the security of physical hardware.

Two very valid and important points. Thank you for making these observations Peter.

p.

On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 7:26 PM, Peter Todd <pete@petertodd•org> wrote:

> On Mon, Jun 01, 2015 at 06:42:05PM +0800, Pindar Wong wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 6:13 PM, Mike Hearn <mike@plan99•net> wrote:
> >
> > > Whilst it would be nice if miners in China can carry on forever
> regardless
> > > of their internet situation, nobody has any inherent "right" to mine if
> > > they can't do the job - if miners in China can't get the trivial
> amounts of
> > > bandwidth required through their firewall and end up being outcompeted
> then
> > > OK, too bad, we'll have to carry on without them.
> > >
> >
> > I'd rather think of mining as a responsibility than a right per se, but
> > you're right in so far as it's competitive and self-correcting.
>
> It's important to remember that the service Bitcoin miners are providing
> us is *not* transaction validation, but rather decentralization.
> Validation is something every full node does already; there's no
> shortage of it. What's tricky is designing a Bitcoin protocol that
> creates the appropriate incentives for mining to remain decentralized,
> so we get good value for the large amount of money being sent to miners.
>
> I've often likened this task to building a robot to go to the grocery
> store to buy milk for you. If that robot doesn't have a nose, before
> long store owners are going to realise it can't tell the difference
> between unspoilt and spoilt milk, and you're going to get ripped off
> paying for a bunch of spoiled milk.
>
> Designing a Bitcoin protocol where we expect "competition" to result in
> smaller miners in more geographically decentralized places to get
> outcompeted by larger miners who are more geographically centralized
> gets us bad value for our money. Sure it's "self-correcting", but not in
> a way that we want.
>
> > > But I'm not sure why it should be a big deal. They can always run a
> node
> > > on a server in Taiwan and connect the hardware to it via a VPN or so.
> > >
> > >
> >  Let's agree to disagree on this point.
>
> Note how that VPN, and likely VPS it's connected too, immediately adds
> another one or two points of failure to the whole system. Not only does
> this decrease reliability, it also decreases security by making attacks
> significantly easier - VPS security is orders of magnitude worse than
> the security of physical hardware.
>
> --
> 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
> 00000000000000000e187b95a9159d04a3586dd4cbc068be88a3eafcb5b885f9
>

Whilst it would be nice if miners in *outside* China can carry on forever regardless of their internet situation, nobody has any inherent "right" to mine if they can't do the job - if miners in *outside* China can't get the trivial amounts of bandwidth required through their firewall *TO THE MAJORITY OF THE HASHRATE* and end up being outcompeted then OK, too bad, we'll have to carry on without them.

On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 12:13 AM, Mike Hearn <mike@plan99•net> wrote:

> Whilst it would be nice if miners in China can carry on forever regardless
> of their internet situation, nobody has any inherent "right" to mine if
> they can't do the job - if miners in China can't get the trivial amounts of
> bandwidth required through their firewall and end up being outcompeted then
> OK, too bad, we'll have to carry on without them.
>
> But I'm not sure why it should be a big deal. They can always run a node
> on a server in Taiwan and connect the hardware to it via a VPN or so.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge•net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>
>

Doesn't mean you should build something that says "fuck you" to the companies that have invested in farms of ASICS. To say "Oh yea if they can't mine it how we want stuff 'em" is naive. I get decentralisation, but don't dis incentivise mining. If miners are telling you that you're going to hurt them, esp. Miners that combined hold > 50% hashing power, why would you say too bad so sad? Why not just start stripping bitcoin out of adopters wallets? Same thing. ________________________________ From: Warren Togami Jr.<mailto:wtogami@gmail.com> Sent: ‎1/‎06/‎2015 10:30 PM Cc: Bitcoin Dev<mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net> Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Fwd: Block Size Increase Requirements

Whilst it would be nice if miners in *outside* China can carry on forever regardless of their internet situation, nobody has any inherent "right" to mine if they can't do the job - if miners in *outside* China can't get the trivial amounts of bandwidth required through their firewall *TO THE MAJORITY OF THE HASHRATE* and end up being outcompeted then OK, too bad, we'll have to carry on without them.

On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 12:13 AM, Mike Hearn <mike@plan99•net> wrote:

> Whilst it would be nice if miners in China can carry on forever regardless
> of their internet situation, nobody has any inherent "right" to mine if
> they can't do the job - if miners in China can't get the trivial amounts of
> bandwidth required through their firewall and end up being outcompeted then
> OK, too bad, we'll have to carry on without them.
>
> But I'm not sure why it should be a big deal. They can always run a node
> on a server in Taiwan and connect the hardware to it via a VPN or so.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge•net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>
>

On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 6:55 PM, Alex Mizrahi <alex.mizrahi@gmail•com> wrote:

> Yes, if you are on a slow network then you are at a (slight) disadvantage.
>> So?
>>
>
> Chun mentioned that his pool is on a slow network, and thus bigger blocks
> give it an disadvantage. (Orphan rate is proportional to block size.)
>

You said that no, on contrary those who make big blocks have a disadvantage.

> And now you say that yes, this disadvantage exist.
>
>

Did you just lie to Chun?

>

Chun said that if somebody produced a big block it would take them at least 6 seconds to process it.

He also said he has nodes outside the great firewall ("We also use Aliyun and Linode cloud services for block propagation.").

So I assumed that he was talking about the "what if somebody produces a block that takes a long time to process" attack -- which doesn't work (the attacker just increases their own orphan rate).

If the whole network is creating blocks that takes everybody (except the person creating the blocks) six seconds to broadcast+validate, then the increase in orphan rate is spread out over the whole network. The network-wide orphan rate goes up, everybody suffers a little (fewer blocks created over time) until the next difficulty adjustment, then the difficulty drops, then everybody is back in the same boat.

If it takes six seconds to validate because of limited bandwidth, then he should connect via Matt's fast relay network, which optimize new block announcements so they take a couple orders of magnitude less bandwidth.

If it takes six seconds because he's trying to validate on a raspberry pi.... then he should buy a better validating machine, and/or help test the current pending pull requests to make validation faster (e.g. https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/5835 or https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/6077 ).

If Chun had six seconds of latency, and he can't pay for a lower-latency connection (or it is insanely expensive), then there's nothing he can do, he'll have to live with a higher orphan rate no matter the block size.

>
> Ignorant. You seem do not understand the current situation. We
> suffered from orphans a lot when we started in 2013. It is now your
> turn.

Then please enlighten me. You're unable to download block templates from a trusted node outside of the country because the bandwidth requirements are too high? Or due to some other problem?

With respect to "now it's your turn". Let's imagine the hard fork goes ahead. Let us assume that almost all exchanges, payment processors and other businesses go with larger blocks, but Chinese miners do not.

Then you will mine coins that will not be recognised on trading platforms and cannot be sold. Your losses will be much larger than from orphans.

This can happen *even* if Chinese miners who can't/won't scale up are >50% hashrate. SPV clients would need a forced checkpoint, which would be messy and undesirable, but it's technically feasible. The smaller side of the chain would cease to exist from the perspective of people actually trading coins.

If your internet connectivity situation is really so poor that you cannot handle one or two megabits out of the country then you're hanging on by your fingernails anyway: your connection to the main internet could become completely unusable at any time. If that's really the case, it seems to me that Chinese Bitcoin is unsustainable and what you really need is a China-specific alt coin that can run entirely within the Chinese internet.

On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 7:20 AM, Chun Wang <1240902@gmail•com> wrote:

> I cannot believe why Gavin (who seems to have difficulty to spell my
> name correctly.) insists on his 20MB proposal regardless the
> community. BIP66 has been introduced for a long time and no one knows
> when the 95% goal can be met. This change to the block max size must
> take one year or more to be adopted. We should increase the limit and
> increase it now. 20MB is simply too big and too risky, sometimes we
> need compromise and push things forward. I agree with any solution
> lower than 10MB in its first two years.
>
>

Thanks, that's useful!

What do other people think? Would starting at a max of 8 or 4 get consensus? Scaling up a little less than Nielsen's Law of Internet Bandwidth predicts for the next 20 years? (I think predictability is REALLY important).

I chose 20 because all of my testing shows it to be safe, and all of my back-of-the-envelope calculations indicate the costs are reasonable.

If consensus is "8 because more than order-of-magnitude increases are scary" -- ok.

That is good. I oppose 20MB because I estimate it may increase the overall orphan rate to an unacceptable level. 5MB, 8MB or probably 10MB should be ok.

On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 9:59 PM, Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail•com> wrote:

> On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 7:20 AM, Chun Wang <1240902@gmail•com> wrote:
>>
>> I cannot believe why Gavin (who seems to have difficulty to spell my
>> name correctly.) insists on his 20MB proposal regardless the
>> community. BIP66 has been introduced for a long time and no one knows
>> when the 95% goal can be met. This change to the block max size must
>> take one year or more to be adopted. We should increase the limit and
>> increase it now. 20MB is simply too big and too risky, sometimes we
>> need compromise and push things forward. I agree with any solution
>> lower than 10MB in its first two years.
>>
>
> Thanks, that's useful!
>
> What do other people think?  Would starting at a max of 8 or 4 get
> consensus?  Scaling up a little less than Nielsen's Law of Internet
> Bandwidth predicts for the next 20 years?  (I think predictability is REALLY
> important).
>
> I chose 20 because all of my testing shows it to be safe, and all of my
> back-of-the-envelope calculations indicate the costs are reasonable.
>
> If consensus is "8 because more than order-of-magnitude increases are scary"
> -- ok.
>
> --
> --
> Gavin Andresen

On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 3:59 PM, Gavin Andresen wrote:

> What do other people think?  Would starting at a max of 8 or 4 get
> consensus?  Scaling up a little less than Nielsen's Law of Internet
> Bandwidth predicts for the next 20 years?  (I think predictability is
> REALLY important).
>
> I chose 20 because all of my testing shows it to be safe, and all of my
> back-of-the-envelope calculations indicate the costs are reasonable.
>
> If consensus is "8 because more than order-of-magnitude increases are
> scary" -- ok.

It would feel better for me if you would keep the power of two:

2^0 = 1MB 2^1 = 2MB 2^2 = 4MB 2^3 = 8MB . . .

But that's only personal. Maybe other people feeling the same.

- oliver

The current max block size of 1000000 bytes is not power of two anyway.

On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 10:46 PM, Oliver Egginger <bitcoin@olivere•de> wrote:

> On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 3:59 PM, Gavin Andresen wrote:
>> What do other people think?  Would starting at a max of 8 or 4 get
>> consensus?  Scaling up a little less than Nielsen's Law of Internet
>> Bandwidth predicts for the next 20 years?  (I think predictability is
>> REALLY important).
>>
>> I chose 20 because all of my testing shows it to be safe, and all of my
>> back-of-the-envelope calculations indicate the costs are reasonable.
>>
>> If consensus is "8 because more than order-of-magnitude increases are
>> scary" -- ok.
>
> It would feel better for me if you would keep the power of two:
>
> 2^0 = 1MB
> 2^1 = 2MB
> 2^2 = 4MB
> 2^3 = 8MB
> .
> .
> .
>
> But that's only personal. Maybe other people feeling the same.
>
> - oliver
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge•net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development

I'm OK with a smaller size + a formula that ramps it up over time. We are far from having enough demand to fill 10MB blocks, let alone 20MB today.

To put it in perspective, to be feeling squeezed inside 10MB within two years, we would need to double usage five times. I wish I knew a way to make that happen. So the chances of us going to 20MB blocks full of real transactions any time soon is close to zero short of some amazing killer app that takes the world by storm (in which case: yay, nice problem to have). As long as capacity significantly outpaces organic growth, we should avoid problems.

The reason to pick 20MB then is merely one of expedience: we have to pick a number, 20 is tested and seems to work, and we don't want to get caught by surprise if demand does outstrip expectations.

Still, I question the underlying logic. We have no idea what connectivity into China will look like a few years from now: it's seems to be a function of politics rather than hardware trends. It might go down rather than up. So 10 vs 20 feels a bit arbitrary. We can't let the Chinese government dictate how Bitcoin is used, that would never be accepted by the rest of the world. But if we optimistically assume things don't get worse, and 10 == more acceptance, then alright - it should make no difference in practice.

Hi everyone,

I'm a long-time lurker of this mailing list but it's the first time I post here, so first of all I'd like to thank all of the usual contributors for the great insights and technical discussions that can be found here. As this is such a momentous point in the history of Bitcoin, I'd just like to throw in my opinion too.

First, I agree with Oliver Egginger's message that it's much more elegant to keep the numbers as powers of 2 rather than introducing somewhat arbitrary numbers like 20. This also makes it easier to count the level of support for what would be a clear spectrum of discrete levels (1, 2, 4, ... 32, 64, ..., infinite). If a temporary peace accord can be reached with a value like 8 or 16, this will buy us some time for both the user base to continue growing without hitting the limit and for newer technologies like the lightning network to be developed and tested. We will also see whether the relatively small increase causes any unexpected harm or whether (as I expect) everything continues to run smoothly.

Personally, I'd like to see Bitcoin grow and become what I think most Bitcoin users like myself expect from it: that it should be a payment network directly accessible to people all over the world. In my opinion, it is the proposition of Bitcoin as a form of electronic money that additionally makes it a good store of value. I don't believe in the idea that it can exist as just some sort of digital gold for a geeky financial elite. And I haven't been persuaded by those who claim the scarcity of block space is an economic fundamental of Bitcoin either. It seems to me there's a lot of batty economic ideas being bandied about regarding the supposed long-term value of the cap without much justification. In this sense, my sympathies are with those who want to remove the maximum block size cap. This was after all the original idea, so it's not fair for the 1MB camp to claim that they're the ones preserving the essences of Bitcoin.

But, anyway, I also think that a consensus at this point would be much better than a head-on confrontation between two incompatible pieces of software competing to gain the favour of a majority of exchanges and merchants. With this in mind, can't we accept the consensus that raising the hard-coded limit to a value like 8MB buys us a bit of time and should be at least palatable to everyone? This may not be what the staunch supporters of the 1MB limit want, but it's also not what I and others would want, so we're talking about finding some common ground here, and not about one side getting their way to the detriment or humiliation of the other.

The problem with a compromise based on a one-off maximum-size increase, of course, is that we're just kicking the can down the road and the discussion will continue. It's not a solution I like, but how can we get people like say Greg Maxwell or Pieter Wuille to accept something more drastic? If they find a new maximum-size cap acceptable, then it could be a reasonable compromise. A new cap will let us test the situation and see how the Bitcoin environment reacts. The next time the discussion crops up (probably very soon, I know...), we may all have a better understanding of the implications.

Ángel José Riesgo

Nielsen's Law of Internet Bandwidth is simply not true, but if you look at data points like http://www.netindex.com/upload/ which will show we are at least on the right track, but this is flawed still.

The fact of the matter is these speed tests are done from local origin to local destination within the city, let alone the country ( see note about how these test are only conducted 300 miles within the server). and our current internet infrastructure is set up with CDNs for the web and media consumption. these data points can not and should not be used to model the connectivity of a peer to peer network.

Uplink bandwidth is scarce is China and expensive, avg about $37 per 1mbps after 5, but this is not the real problem. the true issue lies in the ISP transparent proxy they run. this is not a problem isolated in just China, Thailand and various other countries in Asia like Lebanon. I have also heard in various IRCs that southern France also face this similar issue due to poor routing configurations they have that prevents connections to certain parts of the world, unsure if this is a mistake or a geopolitical by-product.

As for your question earlier Gavin, from Dallas TX to a VPS in Shanghai on 上海电信/Shanghai telecom, which is capped at 5mbps the data results match my concerns, I've gotten low as 83 Kbits/sec and as high as 9.24 Mbits/sec. and other ranges in between, none are consistent. ping avg is about 250ms.

The temporary solution I recommend again from earlier is MPTCP: http://www.multipath-tcp.org/ which allows you to multiple interfaces/networks for a single TCP connection, this is mainly developed for mobile3g/wifi transition but I found uses to improve bandwidth and connection stability on the go by combining a local wifi/ethernet connection with my 3g phone tether. this allows you to set up a middlebox somewhere, put shadowsocks server on it, and on your local machine you can route all TCP traffic over the shadow socks client and MPTCP will automatically pick the best path for upload and download.

On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 9:59 AM, Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail•com> wrote:

> On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 7:20 AM, Chun Wang <1240902@gmail•com> wrote:
>
>> I cannot believe why Gavin (who seems to have difficulty to spell my
>> name correctly.) insists on his 20MB proposal regardless the
>> community. BIP66 has been introduced for a long time and no one knows
>> when the 95% goal can be met. This change to the block max size must
>> take one year or more to be adopted. We should increase the limit and
>> increase it now. 20MB is simply too big and too risky, sometimes we
>> need compromise and push things forward. I agree with any solution
>> lower than 10MB in its first two years.
>>
>>
> Thanks, that's useful!
>
> What do other people think?  Would starting at a max of 8 or 4 get
> consensus?  Scaling up a little less than Nielsen's Law of Internet
> Bandwidth predicts for the next 20 years?  (I think predictability is
> REALLY important).
>
> I chose 20 because all of my testing shows it to be safe, and all of my
> back-of-the-envelope calculations indicate the costs are reasonable.
>
> If consensus is "8 because more than order-of-magnitude increases are
> scary" -- ok.
>
> --
> --
> Gavin Andresen
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge•net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>
>

By reversing Mike's language to the reality of the situation I had hoped people would realize how abjectly ignorant and insensitive his statement was. I am sorry to those in the community if they misunderstood my post. I thought it was obvious that it was sarcasm where I do not seriously believe particular participants should be excluded.

On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 3:06 AM, Thy Shizzle <thyshizzle@outlook•com> wrote:

>  Doesn't mean you should build something that says "fuck you" to the
> companies that have invested in farms of ASICS. To say "Oh yea if they
> can't mine it how we want stuff 'em" is naive. I get decentralisation, but
> don't dis incentivise mining. If miners are telling you that you're going
> to hurt them, esp. Miners that combined hold > 50% hashing power, why would
> you say too bad so sad? Why not just start stripping bitcoin out of
> adopters wallets? Same thing.
>  ------------------------------
> From: Warren Togami Jr. <wtogami@gmail•com>
> Sent: ‎1/‎06/‎2015 10:30 PM
> Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge•net>
> Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Fwd: Block Size Increase Requirements
>
>   Whilst it would be nice if miners in *outside* China can carry on
> forever regardless of their internet situation, nobody has any inherent
> "right" to mine if they can't do the job - if miners in *outside* China
> can't get the trivial amounts of bandwidth required through their firewall *TO
> THE MAJORITY OF THE HASHRATE* and end up being outcompeted then OK, too
> bad, we'll have to carry on without them.
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 12:13 AM, Mike Hearn <mike@plan99•net> wrote:
>
>  Whilst it would be nice if miners in China can carry on forever
> regardless of their internet situation, nobody has any inherent "right" to
> mine if they can't do the job - if miners in China can't get the trivial
> amounts of bandwidth required through their firewall and end up being
> outcompeted then OK, too bad, we'll have to carry on without them.
>
>  But I'm not sure why it should be a big deal. They can always run a node
> on a server in Taiwan and connect the hardware to it via a VPN or so.
>
>

I don't see this as an issue of sensitivity or not. Miners are businesses that sell a service to Bitcoin users - the service of ordering transactions chronologically. They aren't charities.

If some miners can't provide the service Bitcoin users need any more, then OK, they should not/cannot mine. Lots of miners have come and gone since Bitcoin started as different technology generations came and went. That's just business.

So lets rephrase that and say instead more correctly it is the job of miners (collectively) to be well connected globally - and indeed there are incentivised to be or they tend to receive blocks at higher latency and so are at increased risk of orphans. And miner groups with good block latency in-group and high hashrate are definitionally the well connected, so the cost of getting good connectivity to high hashrate groups is naturally borne by people outside of those groups. Or thats the incentive anyway.

Adam

On 1 June 2015 at 19:30, Mike Hearn <mike@plan99•net> wrote:

> I don't see this as an issue of sensitivity or not. Miners are businesses
> that sell a service to Bitcoin users - the service of ordering transactions
> chronologically. They aren't charities.
>
> If some miners can't provide the service Bitcoin users need any more, then
> OK, they should not/cannot mine. Lots of miners have come and gone since
> Bitcoin started as different technology generations came and went. That's
> just business.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge•net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>

I did wonder what the post actually meant, I recommend appending /s after sarcasm so it's clear. Lots gets lost in text. But I agree with you btw his response was not particularly tactful.

On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 7:19 PM, Warren Togami Jr. <wtogami@gmail•com> wrote:

> By reversing Mike's language to the reality of the situation I had hoped
> people would realize how abjectly ignorant and insensitive his statement
> was.  I am sorry to those in the community if they misunderstood my post. I
> thought it was obvious that it was sarcasm where I do not seriously believe
> particular participants should be excluded.
>
> On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 3:06 AM, Thy Shizzle <thyshizzle@outlook•com>
> wrote:
>
>>  Doesn't mean you should build something that says "fuck you" to the
>> companies that have invested in farms of ASICS. To say "Oh yea if they
>> can't mine it how we want stuff 'em" is naive. I get decentralisation, but
>> don't dis incentivise mining. If miners are telling you that you're going
>> to hurt them, esp. Miners that combined hold > 50% hashing power, why would
>> you say too bad so sad? Why not just start stripping bitcoin out of
>> adopters wallets? Same thing.
>>  ------------------------------
>> From: Warren Togami Jr. <wtogami@gmail•com>
>> Sent: ‎1/‎06/‎2015 10:30 PM
>> Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge•net>
>> Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Fwd: Block Size Increase Requirements
>>
>>   Whilst it would be nice if miners in *outside* China can carry on
>> forever regardless of their internet situation, nobody has any inherent
>> "right" to mine if they can't do the job - if miners in *outside* China
>> can't get the trivial amounts of bandwidth required through their
>> firewall *TO THE MAJORITY OF THE HASHRATE* and end up being outcompeted
>> then OK, too bad, we'll have to carry on without them.
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 12:13 AM, Mike Hearn <mike@plan99•net> wrote:
>>
>>  Whilst it would be nice if miners in China can carry on forever
>> regardless of their internet situation, nobody has any inherent "right" to
>> mine if they can't do the job - if miners in China can't get the trivial
>> amounts of bandwidth required through their firewall and end up being
>> outcompeted then OK, too bad, we'll have to carry on without them.
>>
>>  But I'm not sure why it should be a big deal. They can always run a
>> node on a server in Taiwan and connect the hardware to it via a VPN or so.
>>
>>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge•net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>
>

> What do other people think?  Would starting at a max of 8 or 4 get
> consensus?  Scaling up a little less than Nielsen's Law of Internet
> Bandwidth predicts for the next 20 years?  (I think predictability is
> REALLY important).

TL;DR: Personally I'm in favour of doing something relatively uncontroversial (say, a simple increase in the block size to something in the 4-8GB range) with no further increases without a further hard fork.

I'm not sure how relevent Nielsen's Law really is. The only relevent data points Nielsen has really boil down to a law about how the speed of his cable modem connection has changed during the period 1998-2014.

Interesting though that is, it's not hugely relevent to bandwidth-intensive operations like running a full node. The problem is he's only looking at the actual speed of his connection in Mbps, not the amount of data usage in GB/month that his provider permits - and there's no particular reason to expect that both of those two figures follow the same curve. In particular, we're more interested in the cost of backhaul and IP transit (which is what drives the GB/month figure) than we are in improvements in DOCSIS technology, which have little relevence to node operators even on cable modem, and none to any other kind of full node operator, be it on DSL or in a datacentre.

More importantly, I also think a scheduled ramp up is an unnecessary complication. Why do we need to commit now to future block size increases perhaps years into the future? I'd rather schedule an uncontroversial hard fork now (if such thing is possible) even if there's a very real expectation - even an assumption - that by the time the fork has taken place, it's already time to start discussing the next one. Any curve or schedule of increases that stretches years into the future is inevitably going to be controversial - and more so the further into the future it stretches - simply because the uncertainties around the Bitcoin landscape are going to be greater the further ahead we look.

If a simple increase from 1GB to 4GB or 8GB will solve the problem for now, why not do that? Yes, it's quite likely we'll have to do it again, but we'll be able to make that decision in the light of the 2016 or 2017 landscape and can again make a simple, hopefully uncontroversial, increase in the limit at that time.

So, with the proviso that I think this is all bike shedding, if I had to pick my favourite colour for the bike shed, it would be to schedule a hard fork that increases the 1GB limit (to something in the 4-8GB range) but with no further increases without a further hard fork.

Personally I think trying to pick the best value of the 2035 block size now is about as foolish as trying to understand now the economics of Bitcoin mining many halvings hence.

NB: this is not saying that I think we shouldn't go above 8GB in the relatively foreseeable future; quite the contrary, I strongly expect that we will. I just don't see the need to pick the 2020 block size now when we can easily make a far better informed decision as to the 2020 block size in 2018 or even 2019.

As to knowing what the block size is going to be for the next 20 years being "REALLY important"? 100% disagree. I also think it's impossible, because even if you manage to get consensus on a block size increase schedule that stretches out to 2035 (and my prediction is you won't) the reality is that that block size schedule will have been modified by a future hard fork long before we get to 2035.

What I personally think is REALLY important is that the Bitcoin community demonstrates an ability to react appropriately to changing requirements and conditions - and we'll only be able to react to those conditions when we know what they are! My expectation is that there will be several (hopefully _relatively_ uncontroversial) scheduled hard forks between now and 2035, and each of those will be discussed in suitable detail before being agreed. And that's as it should be.

roy

On Mon, Jun 01, 2015 at 09:01:49PM +0100, Roy Badami wrote:

> > What do other people think?  Would starting at a max of 8 or 4 get
> > consensus?  Scaling up a little less than Nielsen's Law of Internet
> > Bandwidth predicts for the next 20 years?  (I think predictability is
> > REALLY important).
>
> TL;DR: Personally I'm in favour of doing something relatively
> uncontroversial (say, a simple increase in the block size to something
> in the 4-8GB range) with no further increases without a further hard
> fork.

And the other bit I should have added to my TL;DR:

If we end up spending a significant proportion of the next 20 years discussing the then _next_ hard fork, that's a *good* thing, not a *bad* thing. Hard forks need to become, if not entirely routine, then certainly less scary. A sequence of (relatively) uncontroversial hard forks over time is way more likely to gain consensus than a single hard fork that attempts to set a schedule for block size increases out to 2035. IMHO.

>
> I'm not sure how relevent Nielsen's Law really is.  The only relevent
> data points Nielsen has really boil down to a law about how the speed
> of his cable modem connection has changed during the period 1998-2014.
>
> Interesting though that is, it's not hugely relevent to
> bandwidth-intensive operations like running a full node.  The problem
> is he's only looking at the actual speed of his connection in Mbps,
> not the amount of data usage in GB/month that his provider permits -
> and there's no particular reason to expect that both of those two
> figures follow the same curve.  In particular, we're more interested
> in the cost of backhaul and IP transit (which is what drives the
> GB/month figure) than we are in improvements in DOCSIS technology,
> which have little relevence to node operators even on cable modem, and
> none to any other kind of full node operator, be it on DSL or in a
> datacentre.
>
> More importantly, I also think a scheduled ramp up is an unnecessary
> complication.  Why do we need to commit now to future block size
> increases perhaps years into the future?  I'd rather schedule an
> uncontroversial hard fork now (if such thing is possible) even if
> there's a very real expectation - even an assumption - that by the
> time the fork has taken place, it's already time to start discussing
> the next one.  Any curve or schedule of increases that stretches years
> into the future is inevitably going to be controversial - and more so
> the further into the future it stretches - simply because the
> uncertainties around the Bitcoin landscape are going to be greater the
> further ahead we look.
>
> If a simple increase from 1GB to 4GB or 8GB will solve the problem for
> now, why not do that?  Yes, it's quite likely we'll have to do it
> again, but we'll be able to make that decision in the light of the
> 2016 or 2017 landscape and can again make a simple, hopefully
> uncontroversial, increase in the limit at that time.
>
> So, with the proviso that I think this is all bike shedding, if I had
> to pick my favourite colour for the bike shed, it would be to schedule
> a hard fork that increases the 1GB limit (to something in the 4-8GB
> range) but with no further increases without a further hard fork.
>
> Personally I think trying to pick the best value of the 2035 block
> size now is about as foolish as trying to understand now the economics
> of Bitcoin mining many halvings hence.
>
> NB: this is not saying that I think we shouldn't go above 8GB in the
> relatively foreseeable future; quite the contrary, I strongly expect
> that we will.  I just don't see the need to pick the 2020 block size
> now when we can easily make a far better informed decision as to the
> 2020 block size in 2018 or even 2019.
>
> As to knowing what the block size is going to be for the next 20 years
> being "REALLY important"?  100% disagree.  I also think it's
> impossible, because even if you manage to get consensus on a block
> size increase schedule that stretches out to 2035 (and my prediction
> is you won't) the reality is that that block size schedule will have
> been modified by a future hard fork long before we get to 2035.
>
> What I personally think is REALLY important is that the Bitcoin
> community demonstrates an ability to react appropriately to changing
> requirements and conditions - and we'll only be able to react to those
> conditions when we know what they are!  My expectation is that there
> will be several (hopefully _relatively_ uncontroversial) scheduled
> hard forks between now and 2035, and each of those will be discussed
> in suitable detail before being agreed.  And that's as it should be.
>
> roy

Ah sorry, I just thought you were saying doesn't matter which side let 'em burn.

If I were the Chinese and people moved to 20mb MAX size blocks and said stuff you, I'd just start firing out small coinbase only blocks now, if they truly have >50% hashing power and they collaborate chances are they can build a longer chain of just coinbase for themselves then the rest of the network doing big blocks. They don't even have to propagate this chain to you in a hurry right? And then they never have to receive a 20mb block from you because they have a longer chain without 20mb blocks and always ahead of your big blocks. As long as it is the longest chain it is Authority so let you guys transact your coinbase from the blocks you create etc. then whamo along come the chinese and supply a longer chain of just coinbase only blocks which invalidates all your previous transactions and gives them all the coinbase they stamped, while invalidating yours.

But who cares about them right :p ________________________________ From: Warren Togami Jr.<mailto:wtogami@gmail.com> Sent: ‎2/‎06/‎2015 4:19 AM Cc: Bitcoin Dev<mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net> Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Fwd: Block Size Increase Requirements

By reversing Mike's language to the reality of the situation I had hoped people would realize how abjectly ignorant and insensitive his statement was. I am sorry to those in the community if they misunderstood my post. I thought it was obvious that it was sarcasm where I do not seriously believe particular participants should be excluded.

On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 3:06 AM, Thy Shizzle <thyshizzle@outlook•com> wrote:

>  Doesn't mean you should build something that says "fuck you" to the
> companies that have invested in farms of ASICS. To say "Oh yea if they
> can't mine it how we want stuff 'em" is naive. I get decentralisation, but
> don't dis incentivise mining. If miners are telling you that you're going
> to hurt them, esp. Miners that combined hold > 50% hashing power, why would
> you say too bad so sad? Why not just start stripping bitcoin out of
> adopters wallets? Same thing.
>  ------------------------------
> From: Warren Togami Jr. <wtogami@gmail•com>
> Sent: ‎1/‎06/‎2015 10:30 PM
> Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge•net>
> Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Fwd: Block Size Increase Requirements
>
>   Whilst it would be nice if miners in *outside* China can carry on
> forever regardless of their internet situation, nobody has any inherent
> "right" to mine if they can't do the job - if miners in *outside* China
> can't get the trivial amounts of bandwidth required through their firewall *TO
> THE MAJORITY OF THE HASHRATE* and end up being outcompeted then OK, too
> bad, we'll have to carry on without them.
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 12:13 AM, Mike Hearn <mike@plan99•net> wrote:
>
>  Whilst it would be nice if miners in China can carry on forever
> regardless of their internet situation, nobody has any inherent "right" to
> mine if they can't do the job - if miners in China can't get the trivial
> amounts of bandwidth required through their firewall and end up being
> outcompeted then OK, too bad, we'll have to carry on without them.
>
>  But I'm not sure why it should be a big deal. They can always run a node
> on a server in Taiwan and connect the hardware to it via a VPN or so.
>
>

It would be helpful to hear from the other miners, and perhaps arrange some testing and telemetry in China with 8 ... that's even a Chinese lucky number ;)

p.

On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 5:32 AM, Thy Shizzle <thyshizzle@outlook•com> wrote:

>  Ah sorry, I just thought you were saying doesn't matter which side let
> 'em burn.
>
> If I were the Chinese and people moved to 20mb MAX size blocks and said
> stuff you, I'd just start firing out small coinbase only blocks now, if
> they truly have >50% hashing power and they collaborate chances are they
> can build a longer chain of just coinbase for themselves then the rest of
> the network doing big blocks. They don't even have to propagate this chain
> to you in a hurry right? And then they never have to receive a 20mb block
> from you because they have a longer chain without 20mb blocks and always
> ahead of your big blocks. As long as it is the longest chain it is
> Authority so let you guys transact your coinbase from the blocks you create
> etc. then whamo along come the chinese and supply a longer chain of just
> coinbase only blocks which invalidates all your previous transactions and
> gives them all the coinbase they stamped, while invalidating yours.
>
> But who cares about them right :p
>  ------------------------------
> From: Warren Togami Jr. <wtogami@gmail•com>
> Sent: ‎2/‎06/‎2015 4:19 AM
> Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge•net>
> Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Fwd: Block Size Increase Requirements
>
>  By reversing Mike's language to the reality of the situation I had hoped
> people would realize how abjectly ignorant and insensitive his statement
> was.  I am sorry to those in the community if they misunderstood my post. I
> thought it was obvious that it was sarcasm where I do not seriously believe
> particular participants should be excluded.
>
> On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 3:06 AM, Thy Shizzle <thyshizzle@outlook•com>
> wrote:
>
>  Doesn't mean you should build something that says "fuck you" to the
> companies that have invested in farms of ASICS. To say "Oh yea if they
> can't mine it how we want stuff 'em" is naive. I get decentralisation, but
> don't dis incentivise mining. If miners are telling you that you're going
> to hurt them, esp. Miners that combined hold > 50% hashing power, why would
> you say too bad so sad? Why not just start stripping bitcoin out of
> adopters wallets? Same thing.
>  ------------------------------
> From: Warren Togami Jr. <wtogami@gmail•com>
> Sent: ‎1/‎06/‎2015 10:30 PM
> Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge•net>
> Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Fwd: Block Size Increase Requirements
>
>    Whilst it would be nice if miners in *outside* China can carry on
> forever regardless of their internet situation, nobody has any inherent
> "right" to mine if they can't do the job - if miners in *outside* China
> can't get the trivial amounts of bandwidth required through their firewall *TO
> THE MAJORITY OF THE HASHRATE* and end up being outcompeted then OK, too
> bad, we'll have to carry on without them.
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 12:13 AM, Mike Hearn <mike@plan99•net> wrote:
>
>  Whilst it would be nice if miners in China can carry on forever
> regardless of their internet situation, nobody has any inherent "right" to
> mine if they can't do the job - if miners in China can't get the trivial
> amounts of bandwidth required through their firewall and end up being
> outcompeted then OK, too bad, we'll have to carry on without them.
>
>  But I'm not sure why it should be a big deal. They can always run a node
> on a server in Taiwan and connect the hardware to it via a VPN or so.
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge•net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>
>