Eric Lombrozo [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2015-08-05 📝 Original message:Rather than speculating on ...
📅 Original date posted:2015-08-05
📝 Original message:Rather than speculating on fake markets, why don’t we use theory, empirical data, and engineering to fix the damn problems?
> On Aug 4, 2015, at 11:28 AM, Owen via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> Given there is no money at stake in these prediction games, it is no surprise that the results are implausible.
>
> On August 4, 2015 10:22:19 AM EDT, Anthony Towns via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> On 4 August 2015 at 01:22, Gavin Andresen via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org <mailto:bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org>> wrote:
> And the preliminary results of using a prediction market to try to wrestle with the tough tradeoffs looks roughly correct to me, too:
> https://blocksizedebate.com/ <https://blocksizedebate.com/>;
>
> The scicast prediction market is shutdown atm (since early July?) so those numbers aren't live. But...
>
> Network hash rate
> 3,255.17 PH/s (same block size)
> 5,032.64 PH/s (block size increase)
>
> 4,969.68 PH/s (no replace-by-fee)
> 3,132.09 PH/s (replace-by-fee)
>
> Those numbers seem completely implausible: that's ~2.9-3.6 doublings of the current hashrate (< 400PH/s) in 17 months, when it's taken 12 months for the last doubling, and there's a block reward reduction due in that period too. (That might've been a reasonable prediction sometime in the past year, when doublings were slowing from once every ~45 days to once a year; it just doesn't seem a supportable prediction now)
>
> That the PH/s rate is higher with bigger blocks is surprising, but given that site also predicts USD/BTC will be $280 with no change but $555 with bigger blocks, so I assume that difference is mostly due to price. Also, 12.5btc at $555 each is about 23 btc at $300 each, so if that price increase is realistic, it would compensate for almost all of the block reward reduction.
>
> Daily transaction volume
> 168,438.22 tx/day (same block size)
> 193,773.08 tx/day (block size increase)
>
> 192,603.80 tx/day (no replace-by-fee)
> 168,406.73 tx/day (replace-by-fee)
>
> That's only a 15% increase in transaction volume due to the block size increase; I would have expected more? 168k-194k tx/day is also only a 30%-50% increase in transaction volume from 130k tx/day currently. If that's really the case, then a 1.5MB-2MB max block size would probably be enough for the next two years...
>
> (Predicting that the node count will drop from ~5000 to ~1200 due to increasing block sizes seems quite an indictment as far as centralisation risks go; but given I'm not that convinced by the other predictions, I'm not sure I want to give that much weight to that one either)
>
> Cheers,
> aj
>
> --
> Anthony Towns <aj at erisian.com.au <mailto:aj at erisian.com.au>>
>
>
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>;
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150804/a00aeb00/attachment-0001.html>;
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 842 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150804/a00aeb00/attachment-0001.sig>;
📝 Original message:Rather than speculating on fake markets, why don’t we use theory, empirical data, and engineering to fix the damn problems?
> On Aug 4, 2015, at 11:28 AM, Owen via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> Given there is no money at stake in these prediction games, it is no surprise that the results are implausible.
>
> On August 4, 2015 10:22:19 AM EDT, Anthony Towns via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> On 4 August 2015 at 01:22, Gavin Andresen via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org <mailto:bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org>> wrote:
> And the preliminary results of using a prediction market to try to wrestle with the tough tradeoffs looks roughly correct to me, too:
> https://blocksizedebate.com/ <https://blocksizedebate.com/>;
>
> The scicast prediction market is shutdown atm (since early July?) so those numbers aren't live. But...
>
> Network hash rate
> 3,255.17 PH/s (same block size)
> 5,032.64 PH/s (block size increase)
>
> 4,969.68 PH/s (no replace-by-fee)
> 3,132.09 PH/s (replace-by-fee)
>
> Those numbers seem completely implausible: that's ~2.9-3.6 doublings of the current hashrate (< 400PH/s) in 17 months, when it's taken 12 months for the last doubling, and there's a block reward reduction due in that period too. (That might've been a reasonable prediction sometime in the past year, when doublings were slowing from once every ~45 days to once a year; it just doesn't seem a supportable prediction now)
>
> That the PH/s rate is higher with bigger blocks is surprising, but given that site also predicts USD/BTC will be $280 with no change but $555 with bigger blocks, so I assume that difference is mostly due to price. Also, 12.5btc at $555 each is about 23 btc at $300 each, so if that price increase is realistic, it would compensate for almost all of the block reward reduction.
>
> Daily transaction volume
> 168,438.22 tx/day (same block size)
> 193,773.08 tx/day (block size increase)
>
> 192,603.80 tx/day (no replace-by-fee)
> 168,406.73 tx/day (replace-by-fee)
>
> That's only a 15% increase in transaction volume due to the block size increase; I would have expected more? 168k-194k tx/day is also only a 30%-50% increase in transaction volume from 130k tx/day currently. If that's really the case, then a 1.5MB-2MB max block size would probably be enough for the next two years...
>
> (Predicting that the node count will drop from ~5000 to ~1200 due to increasing block sizes seems quite an indictment as far as centralisation risks go; but given I'm not that convinced by the other predictions, I'm not sure I want to give that much weight to that one either)
>
> Cheers,
> aj
>
> --
> Anthony Towns <aj at erisian.com.au <mailto:aj at erisian.com.au>>
>
>
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>;
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150804/a00aeb00/attachment-0001.html>;
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 842 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150804/a00aeb00/attachment-0001.sig>;