diff options
author | Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org> | 2015-07-22 22:30:25 +0000 |
---|---|---|
committer | bitcoindev <bitcoindev@gnusha.org> | 2015-07-22 22:30:36 +0000 |
commit | 80d9baa9029fa21c09bfd998377217f48ab9b447 (patch) | |
tree | bf3343466d93aff1685ca3e09f26faf1c5111b55 | |
parent | 912c8de8c72166b4e57d2347930d02892c4a4d3a (diff) | |
download | pi-bitcoindev-80d9baa9029fa21c09bfd998377217f48ab9b447.tar.gz pi-bitcoindev-80d9baa9029fa21c09bfd998377217f48ab9b447.zip |
Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP 102 - kick the can down the road to 2MB
-rw-r--r-- | 1c/038cb6472fbd1fadd3861b26bad282c192d7f5 | 137 |
1 files changed, 137 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/1c/038cb6472fbd1fadd3861b26bad282c192d7f5 b/1c/038cb6472fbd1fadd3861b26bad282c192d7f5 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..9afe03018 --- /dev/null +++ b/1c/038cb6472fbd1fadd3861b26bad282c192d7f5 @@ -0,0 +1,137 @@ +Return-Path: <pete@petertodd.org> +Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org + [172.17.192.35]) + by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B7EF449D + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Wed, 22 Jul 2015 22:30:36 +0000 (UTC) +X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 +Received: from outmail148110.authsmtp.com (outmail148110.authsmtp.com + [62.13.148.110]) + by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4C9BEA + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Wed, 22 Jul 2015 22:30:35 +0000 (UTC) +Received: from mail-c235.authsmtp.com (mail-c235.authsmtp.com [62.13.128.235]) + by punt16.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id t6MMUWdX062696; + Wed, 22 Jul 2015 23:30:32 +0100 (BST) +Received: from [25.157.251.156] ([24.114.64.222]) (authenticated bits=0) + by mail.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id t6MMUSmM005580 + (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); + Wed, 22 Jul 2015 23:30:29 +0100 (BST) +In-Reply-To: <CADm_WcZDLfAwCJn8qc1Myp-OQhgPzx+A7b6nw8u9Z7mgQ6hveg@mail.gmail.com> +References: <CADm_WcZKoMAhYvXbFMbE+5K9HOD75YkQu8_qTW4S6YN6ZMrfjA@mail.gmail.com> + <55A9421B.6040605@jrn.me.uk> <55AC29DB.4060800@jrn.me.uk> + <CABm2gDr6qXzvcpX_To39kCEsnQNTQS4M5Y40Yk_Lw481rjvSag@mail.gmail.com> + <20150721130412.GA4551@savin.petertodd.org> + <20150721135846.GB13429@savin.petertodd.org> + <CADm_WcZDLfAwCJn8qc1Myp-OQhgPzx+A7b6nw8u9Z7mgQ6hveg@mail.gmail.com> +MIME-Version: 1.0 +Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit +Content-Type: text/plain; + charset=UTF-8 +From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org> +Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 22:30:25 +0000 +To: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@gmail.com> +Message-ID: <B4B9D029-06BB-4049-966F-A5F9F34C68F4@petertodd.org> +X-Server-Quench: 4284a6a2-30c1-11e5-b397-002590a15da7 +X-AuthReport-Spam: If SPAM / abuse - report it at: + http://www.authsmtp.com/abuse +X-AuthRoute: OCd2Yg0TA1ZNQRgX IjsJECJaVQIpKltL GxAVKBZePFsRUQkR + aQdMdAAUEkAYAgsB AmMbWVdeU117WmM7 aQ5PbARZfExKQQdo + UldNRFdNFUssB2F8 Y31DLxlycgBOeDBx YUFiVj5fXkx+JEAs + QFNXFT4HeGZhPWUC AkNRcB5UcAFPdx8U a1UrBXRDAzANdhEy + HhM4ODE3eDlSNhEd aCA1ZQtKGw5OVj09 TBNKATUiVUYMQW0/ + KAMgYkIcEQ4LNUw+ eUcmEQg9GXc8 +X-Authentic-SMTP: 61633532353630.1023:706 +X-AuthFastPath: 0 (Was 255) +X-AuthSMTP-Origin: 24.114.64.222/465 +X-AuthVirus-Status: No virus detected - but ensure you scan with your own + anti-virus system. +X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW + autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 +X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on + smtp1.linux-foundation.org +Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org +Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP 102 - kick the can down the road to 2MB +X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org +X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 +Precedence: list +List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org> +List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>, + <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe> +List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/> +List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> +List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help> +List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>, + <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe> +X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 22:30:36 -0000 + +-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- +Hash: SHA256 + +Sorry, but I think you need to re-read my first message. What you've written below has nothing to do with what I actually said re: how you're BIP102 and associated pull-req doesn't measure miner consensus. + + +On 22 July 2015 13:43:19 GMT-04:00, Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@gmail.com> wrote: +>On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 6:58 AM, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev < +>bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: +> +>> I don't agree with you at all. +>> +>> This is a case where if Jeff doesn't understand that issue, he's +>> proposing changes that he's not competent enough to understand, and +>it'd +>> save us a lot of review effort if he left that discussion. Equally, +>Jeff +>> is in a position in the dev community where he should be that +>competent; +>> if he actually isn't it does a lot of good for the broader community +>to +>> change that opinion. +>> +>> I personally *don't* think he's doing that, rather I believe he knows +>> full well it's a bad patch and is proposing it because he wants to +>push +>> discussion towards a solution. Often trolling the a audience with bad +>> patches is an effective way to motivate people to respond by writing +>> better ones; Jeff has told me he often does exactly that. +>> +>> +>mmmm kay. Let's try to keep it technical, please. +> +>2MB is a limit that has been discussed as a viable next-step, meeting +>with +>the most consensus. +> +>2MB gets beyond the 1MB hard fork issue, while still remaining within a +>safety cap that should ensure the system does not go "off the rails" as +>some has predicted. +> +>Security, privacy and centralization are not going to disappear at 2MB. +> +>Further, a limited step gains valuable field data for judging whether +>further steps are warranted - thus informing the "better block size +>solution" development process. +> +>Finally, as stated in the initial PR, it is intended as a viable +>fallback +>should we reach a point of criticality where the user community feels a +>block size increase is warranted, yet cannot reach consensus on a +>fancy, +>all-consuming solution be it 20MB, flexcap, BIP 100, BIP 102, etc. +> +>I am open to suggestions for improving BIP 102. The goal is a minimum +>complexity fallback that others have previously agreed was a useful +>kick-the-can compromise - a static 2MB cap. +-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- + +iQE9BAEBCAAnIBxQZXRlciBUb2RkIDxwZXRlQHBldGVydG9kZC5vcmc+BQJVsBl2 +AAoJEMCF8hzn9Lnc47AIAICM9pA+Jc6rkJ14U0vYqzhwTHmxuaNTXodmI1z88OKM +zCCJQHNw/Xhy339/ZGFeUuVS/Csw275dtzZutLoZamnGnQLh9LllxYFzN8eGJkCL +Ecfo0JcyhduwUihgDfzgE++z5/Q0z5sIo+pZBNipqXW1+N0P/GAvYlHqeb9r0uXG +ccJghZUTwqzm6aySfvXVveTmp0AtjVko1jP1sTxF2pI/RIqBdMY4wEsZvmEhX7Tk +g2iRiPWiEIYR1qETm6e5aQ/tj8W73932s15ozIM35nD5QId5qotQHTVttLAruQvl +2Z35F79TIYDvYtnnRNWIsOyiwreH/y5c0kSUIgrjASA= +=+jTv +-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- + + |