summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authorPeter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>2015-07-22 22:30:25 +0000
committerbitcoindev <bitcoindev@gnusha.org>2015-07-22 22:30:36 +0000
commit80d9baa9029fa21c09bfd998377217f48ab9b447 (patch)
treebf3343466d93aff1685ca3e09f26faf1c5111b55
parent912c8de8c72166b4e57d2347930d02892c4a4d3a (diff)
downloadpi-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/038cb6472fbd1fadd3861b26bad282c192d7f5137
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-----
+
+