diff options
| author | David Vorick <david.vorick@gmail.com> | 2016-02-10 01:14:13 -0500 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | bitcoindev <bitcoindev@gnusha.org> | 2016-02-10 06:14:15 +0000 |
| commit | b44283df824a18457f968f591730ed4e6aee3447 (patch) | |
| tree | 74806ebeec5a38c9e52516980dc3cf329ddbca99 | |
| parent | 79087d253985b9ef98a5c9bbb8e3ac43cb014f42 (diff) | |
| download | pi-bitcoindev-b44283df824a18457f968f591730ed4e6aee3447.tar.gz pi-bitcoindev-b44283df824a18457f968f591730ed4e6aee3447.zip | |
Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP proposal: Increase block size limit to 2 megabytes
| -rw-r--r-- | 0f/3a1bee79e7a99808e75d3c22a639feb65eeae8 | 152 |
1 files changed, 152 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/0f/3a1bee79e7a99808e75d3c22a639feb65eeae8 b/0f/3a1bee79e7a99808e75d3c22a639feb65eeae8 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..024ce03c1 --- /dev/null +++ b/0f/3a1bee79e7a99808e75d3c22a639feb65eeae8 @@ -0,0 +1,152 @@ +Return-Path: <david.vorick@gmail.com> +Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org + [172.17.192.35]) + by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 56086DD6 + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Wed, 10 Feb 2016 06:14:15 +0000 (UTC) +X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 +Received: from mail-vk0-f54.google.com (mail-vk0-f54.google.com + [209.85.213.54]) + by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C4DB0106 + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Wed, 10 Feb 2016 06:14:14 +0000 (UTC) +Received: by mail-vk0-f54.google.com with SMTP id c3so6570391vkb.3 + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Tue, 09 Feb 2016 22:14:14 -0800 (PST) +DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; + h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to + :cc:content-type; + bh=ig8JCtV7KOlIqeRxpbgn6WSQaCvLefo10mnFY07kAgU=; + b=vggM5efj4l5AevMOok6gVs0KzkLzF5Z4LpXh7Oh9a4F6ZWoimzooMNjI03/GC/YkuT + sBP3X3LBQmOXWz0GRAz+9QQT72XX++/EFK4QV4GcsLXJLZcneVPb27xkz2S4xibbNuN3 + 98VtClH9aV4GVvlhI7S2wc5nL8Zd9rIQNNFsa/FSSJKh7n0NF5QO5+vs8PVzHou8P++9 + lBRWF+cotOsO7ohBJo2UQt/HZr50ISLmFOzO1v8fK6JcLO5J4/jJp9fXXs+kLwiIcp8E + 5AxE5uH/ga2Pj8Zf8QrBmFmsd2ROllnq2IjdaANRqGl5bEi2w2aBGYhiM8ajdLw02tFD + tWgw== +X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; + d=1e100.net; s=20130820; + h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date + :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; + bh=ig8JCtV7KOlIqeRxpbgn6WSQaCvLefo10mnFY07kAgU=; + b=YN8qjsZEIT3sQV40PzIVfypoqKQuFTmSzEuvGGrSxUxAX75wh+S2FhbmqbkqERHoUq + gkWKUI+0utWE+dA12TPodOYTEC0okzN/8uzmcb7dW9u7C6r2gZdEBk/L94TVeHElv6h2 + UxXfoc29QXmpeMa9v13o4BorZ8JbydDWWSzTyHISOSNWsfa5ZWTrUxLQUIKbmmCSPLHc + hKWOTUXBoDGXq6u9UYIEVEa50H7zGIB9TBtFCZzQ7WxY6MpLPeaC5RbbZejvw+N+Pnqj + zwhmY6AyS6Zwp5tqrZWLx3zHqelz59n9LAnvfM71417zSVu7ESxclM3kZjHH/t6C/xZT + EBYw== +X-Gm-Message-State: AG10YOQjr+meQddOZ9zWtxMmI0c5Vrz/InDLd558Voe35WAvKVjbZRkjDvGBVOBw+2mIFhz//nqOZ6lXBinxfQ== +MIME-Version: 1.0 +X-Received: by 10.31.168.135 with SMTP id r129mr29255997vke.7.1455084853991; + Tue, 09 Feb 2016 22:14:13 -0800 (PST) +Received: by 10.31.9.72 with HTTP; Tue, 9 Feb 2016 22:14:13 -0800 (PST) +In-Reply-To: <CABsx9T2ewNQn7sxc675Qz6KNF-6DfZjYBY6Q2b6GTZ42X2piwQ@mail.gmail.com> +References: <CABsx9T1Bd0-aQg-9uRa4u3dGA5fKxaj8-mEkxVzX8mhdj4Gt2g@mail.gmail.com> + <201602060012.26728.luke@dashjr.org> + <CABm2gDrns0+eZdLyNk=tDNbnMsC1tT1MfEY93cJf1V_8TPjmLA@mail.gmail.com> + <CABsx9T2LuMZciXpMiY24+rPzhj1VT6j=HJ5STtnQmnfnA_XFUw@mail.gmail.com> + <CAHcfU-W9vubmuRFSb-zZgdKdCvXdO9ttZtu9T2tNxWTHcsGaTA@mail.gmail.com> + <CABsx9T2ewNQn7sxc675Qz6KNF-6DfZjYBY6Q2b6GTZ42X2piwQ@mail.gmail.com> +Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2016 01:14:13 -0500 +Message-ID: <CAFVRnyq7xADJz9nfH05izyfLvGuB_+z=AAXkFFrao6DqKsSTWQ@mail.gmail.com> +From: David Vorick <david.vorick@gmail.com> +To: Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com> +Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11414f94d720be052b645774 +X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, + DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,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 <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> +Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP proposal: Increase block size limit to 2 + megabytes +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, 10 Feb 2016 06:14:15 -0000 + +--001a11414f94d720be052b645774 +Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 + +> I love seeing data! I was considering 0.10 nodes as 'unmaintained' +because it has been a long time since the 0.11 release. + +https://packages.gentoo.org/packages/net-p2p/bitcoin-qt + +The Gentoo package manager still has 0.10.2 as the most recent stable +version. Getting a later version of the software on a gentoo setup requires +explicitly telling the package manger to grab a later version. I don't know +what percent of nodes are Gentoo 0.10.2, but I think it's evidence that +0.10 should not be considered 'unmaintained'. People who update their +software regularly will be running 0.10 on Gentoo. + +> many of whom have privately told me they are willing and able to run an +extra node or three (or a hundred-and-eleven) once there is a final release. + +I'm not clear on the utility of more nodes. Perhaps there is significant +concern about SPV nodes getting enough bandwidth or the network struggling +from the load? Generally though, I believe that when people talk about the +deteriorating full node count they are talking about a reduction in +decentralization. Full nodes are a weak indicator of how likely something +like a change in consensus rules is to get caught, or how many people you +would need to open communication with / extort in order to be able to force +rules upon the network. Having a person spin up multiple nodes doesn't +address either of those concerns, which in my understanding is what most +people care about. My personal concern is with the percentage of the +economy that is dependent on trusting the full nodes they are connected to, +and the overall integrity of that trust. (IE how likely is it that my SPV +node is going to lie to me about whether or not I've received a payment). + +I will also point out that lots of people will promise things when they are +seeking political change. I don't know what percentage of promised nodes +would actually be spun up, but I'm guessing that it's going to be +significantly less than 100%. I have similar fears for companies that claim +they have tested their infrastructure for supporting 2MB blocks. Talk is +cheap. + +--001a11414f94d720be052b645774 +Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 +Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable + +<div dir=3D"ltr">>=C2=A0 I love seeing data!=C2=A0 I was considering 0.1= +0 nodes as 'unmaintained' because it has been a long time since the= + 0.11 release.<br><br><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><a href=3D"https://package= +s.gentoo.org/packages/net-p2p/bitcoin-qt">https://packages.gentoo.org/packa= +ges/net-p2p/bitcoin-qt</a><br><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra">The Gent= +oo package manager still has 0.10.2 as the most recent stable version. Gett= +ing a later version of the software on a gentoo setup requires explicitly t= +elling the package manger to grab a later version. I don't know what pe= +rcent of nodes are Gentoo 0.10.2, but I think it's evidence that 0.10 s= +hould not be considered 'unmaintained'. People who update their sof= +tware regularly will be running 0.10 on Gentoo.<br><br>> many of whom h= +ave privately told me they are willing and able to=20 +run an extra node or three (or a hundred-and-eleven) once there is a=20 +final release.<div><br></div><div>I'm not clear on the utility of more = +nodes. Perhaps there is significant concern about SPV nodes getting enough = +bandwidth or the network struggling from the load? Generally though, I beli= +eve that when people talk about the deteriorating full node count they are = +talking about a reduction in decentralization. Full nodes are a weak indica= +tor of how likely something like a change in consensus rules is to get caug= +ht, or how many people you would need to open communication with / extort i= +n order to be able to force rules upon the network. Having a person spin up= + multiple nodes doesn't address either of those concerns, which in my u= +nderstanding is what most people care about. My personal concern is with th= +e percentage of the economy that is dependent on trusting the full nodes th= +ey are connected to, and the overall integrity of that trust. (IE how likel= +y is it that my SPV node is going to lie to me about whether or not I'v= +e received a payment).<br><br></div><div>I will also point out that lots of= + people will promise things when they are seeking political change. I don&#= +39;t know what percentage of promised nodes would actually be spun up, but = +I'm guessing that it's going to be significantly less than 100%. I = +have similar fears for companies that claim they have tested their infrastr= +ucture for supporting 2MB blocks. Talk is cheap.<br></div></div></div> + +--001a11414f94d720be052b645774-- + |