Published on: 2015-07-28T17:33:29+00:00
The email exchange between Tom Harding and Jorge Timón centers around the role of societal adoption in Satoshi's design. Harding argues that adoption is progressing ahead of schedule, citing the exchange rate as evidence. He believes that the exchange rate is crucial to the health of the network. However, Timón disagrees and suggests that Satoshi's timetable for fee incentives can be improved upon. It is noted that communication between the two may be hindered by language barriers. The email ends with Harding sharing a saying about geniuses causing more harm than fools.The phrase "no offense taken" is discussed as a way to diffuse tension in informal conversations, but it is emphasized that it does not excuse offensive behavior. It is important to be mindful and respectful of others' feelings. Some people may find the phrase dismissive or invalidating, so it is crucial to listen to others' perspectives. The Bitcoin mailing list is mentioned as a platform for technical proposals and discussions where personal attacks are not tolerated.Peter Todd receives a warning about his Twitter activity from Alice Larson. Todd acknowledges the warning and attaches an OpenPGP signature to the email exchange. The context highlights the importance of measuring risk systematically and avoiding drama on social media platforms. Todd's behavior, which includes derogatory comments towards women and creating drama, is driving away vendors. The debate on the blocksize in the Bitcoin community has become non-technical and counterproductive. Cheap shots at vendors and name-calling have hindered consensus-building. It is necessary to engage in mature discussions and conduct real risk analysis.Pieter Wuille shares his opinion on the relationship between Bitcoin Core and consensus rules. He emphasizes the responsibility of Bitcoin Core developers to create secure software and participate in consensus discussions without central control. Wuille believes that a fee market should develop sooner rather than later and warns against delaying decisions on block size limits. He suggests that stakeholders should explain their scalability plans and calls for research on managing social issues in Bitcoin development.Jorge Timón explains that increasing the exchange rate of Bitcoin is not within their control. However, the recipient argues that developers can influence Bitcoin's value through their work. They discuss sustaining the Bitcoin system through fees and the potential negative impact of a block size limit on short-term adoption.The use of smart contracts in the cryptocurrency space allows for trustless negotiation and optimization. Quality-of-service (QoS) guarantees can be implemented through third-party bidding. Negotiating directly with miners via smart contracts is challenging due to mining processes. Jean-Paul Kogelman suggests using implicit QoS, which is simpler and closer to Bitcoin's original purpose. Miners can set fee tiers, and users choose the level of service they want. The discussion revolves around finding a solution that balances simplicity and fairness.The assumption that all nodes have similar computational resources leads to misplaced incentives in the cryptocurrency industry. Direct outsourcing of computation through cryptocurrencies would distribute tasks economically. Wallets should be assumed to have low computational resources, so third parties can shift complexity and risk. Negotiating directly with miners via smart contracts is challenging. Giving guarantees without a majority of hashing power is not possible due to mining processes.Jean-Paul Kogelman, Eric Lombrozo, and Peter Todd discuss implementing QoS guarantees in Bitcoin transactions. Kogelman suggests implicit QoS, while Lombrozo proposes using third-party services for bidding and timelocked contracts. Todd points out the difficulty of giving guarantees without majority hashing power.In a discussion on the bitcoin-dev mailing list, the topic of Quality of Service (QoS) guarantees within the Bitcoin ecosystem is explored. Jean-Paul Kogelman suggests that miners should be responsible for setting different values for transaction fees to promote a healthy fee market. Eric Lombrozo proposes using separate services that guarantee inclusion for a predetermined price and do the bidding on behalf of the user. The conversation also addresses the issue of block time variance and the impact on transaction confirmation.Kogelman argues that giving guarantees without a majority of hashing power isn't possible due to the random nature of mining. However, he believes that implementing QoS, even if not perfect, is more workable than guessing whether a transaction will end up in a block at all. Lombrozo questions the meaning of QoS in this context and highlights that transactions are either included or not, unlike a hotel where upgrades are possible.The discussion also touches upon the interference of a size cap with the QoS scheme. If miners have to start excluding transactions, they won't be able to deliver guarantees. The idea of bidding on behalf of miners through timelocked contracts is proposed as a mechanism to enforce QoS guarantees and shift complexity and risk from individual miners to third-party services.Furthermore, the conversation delves into considerations about the block size debate and its relationship to scaling the network. Eric Lombrozo argues that increasing the block size would not hinder the progress of research and development of Lightning or other technologies.
Updated on: 2023-08-01T14:28:34.174288+00:00