[bitcoin-dev] Eli Dourado on "governance"

Owen ogunden at phauna.org
Tue Aug 4 18:28:27 UTC 2015

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> wrote:
>> And the preliminary results of using a prediction market to try to
>> with the tough tradeoffs looks roughly correct to me, too:
>>    https://blocksizedebate.com/
>​The scicast prediction market is shutdown atm (since early July?) so
>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
>current hashrate (< 400PH/s) in 17 months, when it's taken 12 months
>the last doubling, and there's a block reward reduction due in that
>too. (That might've been a reasonable prediction sometime in the past
>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
>that site also predicts USD/BTC will be $280 with no change but $555
>bigger blocks, so I assume that difference is mostly due to price.
>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
>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
>risks go; but given I'm not that convinced by the other predictions,
>not sure I want to give that much weight to that one either)
>Anthony Towns <aj at erisian.com.au>
>bitcoin-dev mailing list
>bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150804/a4870189/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the bitcoin-dev mailing list