diff options
| author | odinn <odinn.cyberguerrilla@riseup.net> | 2015-06-18 00:27:42 -0700 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | bitcoindev <bitcoindev@gnusha.org> | 2015-06-18 07:27:53 +0000 |
| commit | 01f3f94f8869a9077412c56762dc83762f568654 (patch) | |
| tree | dedbe4e162192e18d8c26d5ab146bb2adfa3d101 | |
| parent | 83816af294f3d975266bb0d3a62bd9c9f303e735 (diff) | |
| download | pi-bitcoindev-01f3f94f8869a9077412c56762dc83762f568654.tar.gz pi-bitcoindev-01f3f94f8869a9077412c56762dc83762f568654.zip | |
[Bitcoin-development] Scope narrowing for proposals to address block size limit debate, an inquiry
| -rw-r--r-- | fe/cc70213c5ccf4e26212a826bf8747596b65c8d | 134 |
1 files changed, 134 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/fe/cc70213c5ccf4e26212a826bf8747596b65c8d b/fe/cc70213c5ccf4e26212a826bf8747596b65c8d new file mode 100644 index 000000000..9fdd70943 --- /dev/null +++ b/fe/cc70213c5ccf4e26212a826bf8747596b65c8d @@ -0,0 +1,134 @@ +Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191] + helo=mx.sourceforge.net) + by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) + (envelope-from <odinn.cyberguerrilla@riseup.net>) id 1Z5UEr-0002zj-Hq + for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; + Thu, 18 Jun 2015 07:27:53 +0000 +Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of riseup.net + designates 198.252.153.129 as permitted sender) + client-ip=198.252.153.129; + envelope-from=odinn.cyberguerrilla@riseup.net; + helo=mx1.riseup.net; +Received: from mx1.riseup.net ([198.252.153.129]) + by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) + (Exim 4.76) id 1Z5UEn-0003T1-VO + for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; + Thu, 18 Jun 2015 07:27:53 +0000 +Received: from berryeater.riseup.net (berryeater-pn.riseup.net [10.0.1.120]) + (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) + (Client CN "*.riseup.net", + Issuer "COMODO RSA Domain Validation Secure Server CA" (verified OK)) + by mx1.riseup.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0AFAB4120D + for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>; + Thu, 18 Jun 2015 07:27:44 +0000 (UTC) +Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) + (Authenticated sender: odinn.cyberguerrilla) + with ESMTPSA id C9714400E7 +Message-ID: <558272EE.9040305@riseup.net> +Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2015 00:27:42 -0700 +From: odinn <odinn.cyberguerrilla@riseup.net> +User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; + rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0 +MIME-Version: 1.0 +To: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net> +Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 +X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.98.7 at mx1 +X-Virus-Status: Clean +Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable +X-Spam-Score: -1.8 (-) +X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. + See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. + -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for + sender-domain + -0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, + no trust [198.252.153.129 listed in list.dnswl.org] + -0.0 SPF_HELO_PASS SPF: HELO matches SPF record + -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record + -0.3 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay + domain + 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, + not necessarily valid + 0.0 T_DKIM_INVALID DKIM-Signature header exists but is not valid + 0.0 UNPARSEABLE_RELAY Informational: message has unparseable relay + lines + -0.1 AWL AWL: Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address +X-Headers-End: 1Z5UEn-0003T1-VO +Subject: [Bitcoin-development] Scope narrowing for proposals to address + block size limit debate, an inquiry +X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net +X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 +Precedence: list +List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net> +List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>, + <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe> +List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development> +List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net> +List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help> +List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>, + <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe> +X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2015 07:27:53 -0000 + +-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- +Hash: SHA1 + +The purpose of this post is to present an inquiry related to the +possible narrowing of scope of what sort of proposals are likely to +"bear fruit" at this stage. The inquiry or question is, "Are there +some proposals that are more likely to succeed, in addressing the +whole block size limit debate meaningfully?" + +The flip side of this inquiry, is that if you think that an attempt to +do such "scope narrowing" _at this time_ is foolhardy, inappropriate, +wrong, or otherwise flawed, please say so and explain. I'm not +religious about this notion. I throw out proposals below which I +think would be likely to advance further ~ and thus I ask the question +again, and rephrase, "Are there some proposals (some shown below as +examples, not all-inclusive) that are more likely to succeed, in +addressing the whole block size limit debate meaningfully?" + +~ Jeff Garzik, with respect to his BIP 100 (note Evan Mo, CEO of +Huobi's mining project Digcoin, clarified that the big Chinese mining +pools consider further adjustments to the protocol beyond the +suggested 8 MB block size limit adjustment =E2=80=94 such as the Bitcoin = +core +developer Jeff Garzik's BIP-100 draft =E2=80=94 to be feasible) + ~ Adam Back, with a simplified soft-fork one-way peg + ~ Gavin Andresen, developing an 8 MB block size limit adjustment in +the context of Core (as an example) with one or more of the above +authors rather than focusing on XT. (This is a big assumption but, +roll with it) + +All of this assumes that developer(s) are willing to abandon +intentionally contentious proposals such as the "hard fork to XT w/ 20 +MB," remain within the context of Core and be reasonable. + +Here I am being aware of the fact that "Pushing a hard fork in the +face of such controversy is a folly, a danger to the network, and that +deserves to be said." - Wladimir J. van der Laan +https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin.org/pull/894#issuecomment-112113917 + +And if I'm lucky, this thread may get comments from DumbFruit, who +writes stuff like this: +https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3D1085436.msg11643203#msg11643203 + +So now... your thoughts? + + +- --=20 +http://abis.io ~ +"a protocol concept to enable decentralization +and expansion of a giving economy, and a new social good" +https://keybase.io/odinn +-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- +Version: GnuPG v1 + +iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJVgnLuAAoJEGxwq/inSG8CchMH/0zm+A7Uqp8SpU+CsJr3lF2+ +0re+5Ql4qVVmOI560918BtkdFjcq33jsKU9cYUDXqZ4wHfJTAGLGDqNgUZGpGkmJ +bqGgSvdF64P52Vb9PVnz1I9+aClas8Mjvl8XUYoD0yEA14XVBakYDRbVqZ5yPM8n +hBi6EpWLUnkFvvEj2dkgwddvPCvrnhVL/aRfmhet1pfOELfIrXtXI7hs2F1RyaqK +sbR/Qg3SFlyHzbxSzRVcZQ0G81exq/fxHqxc5kSLMiR7TODIJxCl6cJDCjf8LbeS +n6tL/I8vWN2zraYfb0cWu5uIjz5XnXpsitu951109zoS8IYle3uTfCF+6xdG3tY=3D +=3DHQ9R +-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- + + |