summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authorRaystonn . <raystonn@hotmail.com>2015-06-15 10:53:17 -0700
committerbitcoindev <bitcoindev@gnusha.org>2015-06-15 17:53:33 +0000
commit11734bdd6cd95d61d68dd6c835e2346fc5e08d4f (patch)
treede8bd01e38738715d67c8a847a9fb1b90f2827cc
parenteb03cdb0c36280f6e14e9a8552b18e6c4139d3be (diff)
downloadpi-bitcoindev-11734bdd6cd95d61d68dd6c835e2346fc5e08d4f.tar.gz
pi-bitcoindev-11734bdd6cd95d61d68dd6c835e2346fc5e08d4f.zip
Re: [Bitcoin-development] comments on BIP 100
-rw-r--r--de/02d8094cb52a3300554d377236ec3cd7052aed403
1 files changed, 403 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/de/02d8094cb52a3300554d377236ec3cd7052aed b/de/02d8094cb52a3300554d377236ec3cd7052aed
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..77a82e49a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/de/02d8094cb52a3300554d377236ec3cd7052aed
@@ -0,0 +1,403 @@
+Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193]
+ helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
+ by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
+ (envelope-from <raystonn@hotmail.com>) id 1Z4YZh-0006Dc-3x
+ for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
+ Mon, 15 Jun 2015 17:53:33 +0000
+Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of hotmail.com
+ designates 65.55.34.216 as permitted sender)
+ client-ip=65.55.34.216; envelope-from=raystonn@hotmail.com;
+ helo=COL004-OMC4S14.hotmail.com;
+Received: from col004-omc4s14.hotmail.com ([65.55.34.216])
+ by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256)
+ (Exim 4.76) id 1Z4YZf-0006xH-Jn
+ for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
+ Mon, 15 Jun 2015 17:53:33 +0000
+Received: from COL131-DS5 ([65.55.34.201]) by COL004-OMC4S14.hotmail.com over
+ TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(7.5.7601.22751);
+ Mon, 15 Jun 2015 10:53:25 -0700
+X-TMN: [1sJllhT9HMAxM1t92dQ4Ab0c8lpzmIkd]
+X-Originating-Email: [raystonn@hotmail.com]
+Message-ID: <COL131-DS5331AE0C03A2BF6E0553ECDB80@phx.gbl>
+From: "Raystonn ." <raystonn@hotmail.com>
+To: "Rebroad \(sourceforge\)" <rebroad+sourceforge.net@gmail.com>
+References: <CALqxMTHrnSS9MGgKO-5+=fVhiOOvk12Recs11S0PcSUxQT1wdQ@mail.gmail.com><CANEZrP1nx9rNf1q-nubP77U8RMABuLtmEB_P7UpY2zyFf-Ns-w@mail.gmail.com><CALqxMTENbj+E7ypJASrM1r04eW3kYe+afwy+Rt3i9ubeT-=2mA@mail.gmail.com><CANEZrP0Z_EOmVgbvVmYDvegm6jfd1cKB52acXHocjRuM-qGEog@mail.gmail.com><CAPg+sBgc0i-XsN=g0V4Y0bko-Xb1AT5x=UWDa+opL3eFbBmJfA@mail.gmail.com><CANEZrP0eGDTafK+ZUBNcQBOe2JU_PqZVXMt0Ds-b8Ley7kbGrA@mail.gmail.com><CAPg+sBiPhhrBh8f3QxJLtoysfywtVFSo2RH0WXVR+vpX9z6+HQ@mail.gmail.com><CANEZrP10gn+969d-oe-8Em9ipe4DOP9q0WkNtL6u-6V5aphkPQ@mail.gmail.com>
+ <CAFBxzAAExA-aE+8o-+HGQtnuwWuWpkt8Lbgxvh7hT64XkMKOPg@mail.gmail.com>
+In-Reply-To: <CAFBxzAAExA-aE+8o-+HGQtnuwWuWpkt8Lbgxvh7hT64XkMKOPg@mail.gmail.com>
+Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2015 10:53:17 -0700
+MIME-Version: 1.0
+Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
+ boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00EE_01D0A759.7C3217D0"
+X-Priority: 3
+X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
+Importance: Normal
+X-Mailer: Microsoft Windows Live Mail 15.4.3555.308
+X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V15.4.3555.308
+X-OriginalArrivalTime: 15 Jun 2015 17:53:25.0836 (UTC)
+ FILETIME=[2DC0E8C0:01D0A794]
+X-Spam-Score: -0.0 (/)
+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 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
+ (raystonn[at]hotmail.com)
+ -0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/,
+ no trust [65.55.34.216 listed in list.dnswl.org]
+ -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
+ -0.5 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay
+ domain 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
+ 1.0 FREEMAIL_REPLY From and body contain different freemails
+ -0.1 AWL AWL: Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address
+X-Headers-End: 1Z4YZf-0006xH-Jn
+Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
+Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] comments on BIP 100
+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: Mon, 15 Jun 2015 17:53:33 -0000
+
+------=_NextPart_000_00EE_01D0A759.7C3217D0
+Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
+Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
+
+> The solution is to hard-fork and merge-mine. This way, both can live, =
+and mining power is not divided.
+
+No, this would essentially be blessing an increase to 42M bitcoins, half =
+on each chain. You could expect a severe market price correction if =
+this were to happen.
+
+From: Rebroad (sourceforge)=20
+Sent: Monday, June 15, 2015 4:16 AM
+Cc: Bitcoin Dev=20
+Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] comments on BIP 100
+
+My understanding of this debate is that there are some people who want =
+to keep Bitcoin at 1MB block limit, and there are some who want to =
+increase it.=20
+
+I for one am curious to see how 1MB limited bitcoin evolves, and I =
+believe we can all have a chance to see this AND hard-fork bitcoin to =
+remove the block size restriction.
+
+To remove the 1MB limit required a hard fork. This is not disputed. It's =
+what we do with the original (1MB limit) bitcoin that concerns me (and =
+other's I am sure).
+
+What I would like to see is both being allowed to live. Harry Potter and =
+Voldermort! (Except neither are evil!)
+
+The solution is to hard-fork and merge-mine. This way, both can live, =
+and mining power is not divided.
+
+Dogecoin recently hardforked and this hardfork also involved switching =
+to merge-mining, so it's been done successfully.
+
+So, simply, bitcoin as it is doesn't need to actually fork, but instead, =
+at a certain block size, a forked bitcoin with the blocksize lmit =
+removed will start to be merge-mined alongside bitcoin. Miners can be =
+ready for this. Wallets can be ready for this - in fact, for most =
+wallets and merchants they will possibly want to default to the bigger =
+blocksize fork since this caters for more transactions per block.
+
+We still don't know how removing the block limit will pan out and what =
+other problems with scalability will arise in the future, so by =
+preserving the original bitcoin, we keep diversity, and people won't =
+feel their investments in bitcoin are being unnecessarily put at risk =
+(as their investments will stay in both the new and the old bitcoin).
+
+The bitcoin core developers can implement a patch like the one recently =
+used for dogecoin, to allow the chain to fork at a set point, where at =
+which point, bitcoins will be split into the new and the old. Branding =
+will be an important issue here I think, so that there is as little =
+confusion as possible. I think this is a small price to pay in return =
+for not killing the original bitcoin (even if it's true that Satoshi did =
+intend to remove the 1MB limit at some point).
+
+If I'm missing something obvious please let me know.
+
+On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 1:50 PM, Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net> wrote:
+
+ The fact that using a centralized service is easier isn't a good =
+reason IMHO. It disregards the long-term, and introduces systemic risk.
+
+
+ Well sure, that's easy for you to say, but you have a salary :) Other =
+developers may find the incremental benefits of decentralisation low vs =
+adding additional features, for instance, and who is to say they are =
+wrong?
+
+ But in cases where using a decentralized approach doesn't *add* =
+anything, I cannot reasonably promote it, and that's why I was against =
+getutxos in the P2P protocol.
+
+
+ It does add something though! It means, amongst other things, I can =
+switch of all my servers, walk away for good, discard this Mike Hearn =
+pseudonym I invented for Bitcoin and the app will still work :) Surely =
+that is an important part of being decentralised?
+
+ It also means that as the underlying protocol evolves over time, =
+getutxos can evolve along side it. P2P protocol gets =
+encrypted/authenticated? Great, one more additional bit of security. If =
+one day miners commit to UTXO sets, great, one more additional bit of =
+security. When we start including input values in the signature hash, =
+great ... one more step up in security.
+
+ Anyway, I didn't really want to reopen this debate. I just point out =
+that third party services are quite happy to provide whatever developers =
+need to build great apps, even if doing so fails to meet some kind of =
+perfect cryptographic ideal. And that's why they're winning devs.
+
+ Now back to your regularly scheduled block size debates ...=20
+
+ =
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------=
+-----
+
+ _______________________________________________
+ 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
+
+------=_NextPart_000_00EE_01D0A759.7C3217D0
+Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8"
+Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
+
+<HTML><HEAD></HEAD>
+<BODY dir=3Dltr>
+<DIV dir=3Dltr>
+<DIV style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial'; COLOR: #000000">
+<DIV>&gt; <FONT face=3DCalibri><FONT style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 9pt">The =
+solution is to=20
+hard-fork and merge-mine. This way, both can live, and mining power is =
+not=20
+divided.</FONT></FONT></DIV>
+<DIV><FONT face=3DCalibri></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
+<DIV><FONT face=3DCalibri>No, this would essentially be blessing an =
+increase to=20
+42M bitcoins, half on each chain.&nbsp; You could expect a severe market =
+price=20
+correction if this were to happen.</FONT></DIV>
+<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
+<DIV>
+<DIV=20
+style=3D'FONT-SIZE: small; TEXT-DECORATION: none; FONT-FAMILY: =
+"Calibri"; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; COLOR: #000000; FONT-STYLE: normal; =
+DISPLAY: inline'><FONT=20
+size=3D2 face=3DArial></FONT></DIV>
+<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt tahoma">
+<DIV style=3D"BACKGROUND: #f5f5f5">
+<DIV style=3D"font-color: black"><B>From:</B> <A=20
+title=3Drebroad+sourceforge.net@gmail.com=20
+href=3D"mailto:rebroad+sourceforge.net@gmail.com">Rebroad =
+(sourceforge)</A> </DIV>
+<DIV><B>Sent:</B> Monday, June 15, 2015 4:16 AM</DIV>
+<DIV><B>Cc:</B> <A title=3Dbitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net=20
+href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net">Bitcoin =
+Dev</A> </DIV>
+<DIV><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Bitcoin-development] comments on BIP=20
+100</DIV></DIV></DIV>
+<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV></DIV>
+<DIV=20
+style=3D'FONT-SIZE: small; TEXT-DECORATION: none; FONT-FAMILY: =
+"Calibri"; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; COLOR: #000000; FONT-STYLE: normal; =
+DISPLAY: inline'>
+<DIV dir=3Dltr><SPAN style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12px">My understanding of this =
+debate is=20
+that there are some people who want to keep Bitcoin at 1MB block limit, =
+and=20
+there are some who want to increase it.</SPAN>=20
+<DIV style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12px">&nbsp;</DIV>
+<DIV style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12px">I for one am curious to see how 1MB =
+limited bitcoin=20
+evolves, and I believe we can all have a chance to see this AND =
+hard-fork=20
+bitcoin to remove the block size restriction.</DIV>
+<DIV style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12px"><FONT size=3D2 =
+face=3DArial></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
+<DIV style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12px">To remove the 1MB limit required a hard =
+fork. This=20
+is not disputed. It's what we do with the original (1MB limit) bitcoin =
+that=20
+concerns me (and other's I am sure).</DIV>
+<DIV style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12px">&nbsp;</DIV>
+<DIV style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12px">What I would like to see is both being =
+allowed to=20
+live. Harry Potter and Voldermort! (Except neither are evil!)</DIV>
+<DIV style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12px">&nbsp;</DIV>
+<DIV style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12px">The solution is to hard-fork and =
+merge-mine. This=20
+way, both can live, and mining power is not divided.</DIV>
+<DIV style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12px">&nbsp;</DIV>
+<DIV style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12px">Dogecoin recently hardforked and this =
+hardfork also=20
+involved switching to merge-mining, so it's been done =
+successfully.</DIV>
+<DIV style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12px">&nbsp;</DIV>
+<DIV style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12px">So, simply, bitcoin as it is doesn't need =
+to=20
+actually fork, but instead, at a certain block size, a forked bitcoin =
+with the=20
+blocksize lmit removed will start to be merge-mined alongside bitcoin. =
+Miners=20
+can be ready for this. Wallets can be ready for this - in fact, for most =
+wallets=20
+and merchants they will possibly want to default to the bigger blocksize =
+fork=20
+since this caters for more transactions per block.</DIV>
+<DIV style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12px">&nbsp;</DIV>
+<DIV style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12px">We still don't know how removing the =
+block limit=20
+will pan out and what other problems with scalability will arise in the =
+future,=20
+so by preserving the original bitcoin, we keep diversity, and people =
+won't feel=20
+their investments in bitcoin are being unnecessarily put at risk (as =
+their=20
+investments will stay in both the new and the old bitcoin).</DIV>
+<DIV style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12px">&nbsp;</DIV>
+<DIV style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12px">The bitcoin core developers can implement =
+a patch=20
+like the one recently used for dogecoin, to allow the chain to fork at a =
+set=20
+point, where at which point, bitcoins will be split into the new and the =
+old.=20
+Branding will be an important issue here I think, so that there is as =
+little=20
+confusion as possible. I think this is a small price to pay in return =
+for not=20
+killing the original bitcoin (even if it's true that Satoshi did intend =
+to=20
+remove the 1MB limit at some point).</DIV>
+<DIV style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12px">&nbsp;</DIV>
+<DIV style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12px">If I'm missing something obvious please =
+let me=20
+know.</DIV></DIV>
+<DIV class=3Dgmail_extra>
+<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
+<DIV class=3Dgmail_quote>On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 1:50 PM, Mike Hearn =
+<SPAN=20
+dir=3Dltr>&lt;<A href=3D"mailto:mike@plan99.net"=20
+target=3D_blank>mike@plan99.net</A>&gt;</SPAN> wrote:<BR>
+<BLOCKQUOTE class=3Dgmail_quote=20
+style=3D"PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc =
+1px solid">
+ <DIV dir=3Dltr>
+ <DIV class=3Dgmail_extra>
+ <DIV class=3Dgmail_quote><SPAN>
+ <BLOCKQUOTE class=3Dgmail_quote=20
+ style=3D"PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: =
+#ccc 1px solid">
+ <DIV dir=3Dltr>
+ <DIV class=3Dgmail_extra>
+ <DIV class=3Dgmail_quote>
+ <DIV>The fact that using a centralized service is easier isn't a =
+good reason=20
+ IMHO. It disregards the long-term, and introduces systemic=20
+ risk.<BR></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
+ <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV></SPAN>
+ <DIV>Well sure, that's easy for you to say, but you have a salary :) =
+Other=20
+ developers may find the incremental benefits of decentralisation low =
+vs adding=20
+ additional features, for instance, and who is to say they are=20
+ wrong?</DIV><SPAN>
+ <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
+ <BLOCKQUOTE class=3Dgmail_quote=20
+ style=3D"PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: =
+#ccc 1px solid">
+ <DIV dir=3Dltr>
+ <DIV class=3Dgmail_extra>
+ <DIV class=3Dgmail_quote>
+ <DIV>But in cases where using a decentralized approach doesn't *add* =
+
+ anything, I cannot reasonably promote it, and that's why I was =
+against=20
+ getutxos in the P2P =
+protocol.<BR></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
+ <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV></SPAN>
+ <DIV>It does add something though! It means, amongst other things, I =
+can=20
+ switch of all my servers, walk away for good, discard this Mike Hearn=20
+ pseudonym I invented for Bitcoin and the app will still work :) Surely =
+that is=20
+ an important part of being decentralised?</DIV>
+ <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
+ <DIV>It also means that as the underlying protocol evolves over time, =
+getutxos=20
+ can evolve along side it. P2P protocol gets encrypted/authenticated? =
+Great,=20
+ one more additional bit of security. If one day miners commit to UTXO =
+sets,=20
+ great, one more additional bit of security. When we start including =
+input=20
+ values in the signature hash, great ... one more step up in =
+security.</DIV>
+ <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
+ <DIV>Anyway, I didn't really want to reopen this debate. I just point =
+out that=20
+ third party services are quite happy to provide whatever developers =
+need to=20
+ build great apps, even if doing so fails to meet some kind of perfect=20
+ cryptographic ideal. And that's why they're winning devs.</DIV>
+ <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
+ <DIV>Now back to your regularly scheduled block size debates ...=20
+ =
+</DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV><BR>---------------------------------------------=
+---------------------------------<BR><BR>________________________________=
+_______________<BR>Bitcoin-development=20
+ mailing list<BR><A=20
+ =
+href=3D"mailto:Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net">Bitcoin-develop=
+ment@lists.sourceforge.net</A><BR><A=20
+ =
+href=3D"https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development"=
+=20
+ rel=3Dnoreferrer=20
+ =
+target=3D_blank>https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-deve=
+lopment</A><BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV>
+<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV></DIV>
+<P>
+<HR>
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------=
+-----<BR>
+<P>
+<HR>
+_______________________________________________<BR>Bitcoin-development =
+mailing=20
+list<BR>Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net<BR>https://lists.source=
+forge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development<BR></DIV></DIV></DIV></BODY>=
+</HTML>
+
+------=_NextPart_000_00EE_01D0A759.7C3217D0--
+
+