+Return-Path: <luvb@hotmail.com>

+Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org

+ [172.17.192.35])

+ by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4AF23B2F

+ for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;

+ Thu, 30 Mar 2017 07:11:26 +0000 (UTC)

+X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6

+Received: from APC01-SG2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com

+ (mail-oln040092253080.outbound.protection.outlook.com [40.92.253.80])

+ by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B9D8FAF

+ for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;

+ Thu, 30 Mar 2017 07:11:24 +0000 (UTC)

+DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=hotmail.com;

+ s=selector1; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version;

+ bh=1SoTi5R7xv/tobWQEAOHVBxDb540RImq8U5eGFBIvII=;

+ b=nh0hFJVslxdHF8DJLdNTFAxvKLLXTb653qECEK402RE5Ezqb8Xa9UoY2I1siqyMfCDyQsXmOqQfSxwJFZ717UGr+jKmvmSN/D4W6pWV+iAvk0ctlz1+vi+YAzofW+onqCUVwbNTruV/4DWXsp61W+WAhov6tm22vt4UEwxtEl5YdNJ1S/+H+ompqIUwCF+DpT90hdA8YVz+tTI//wVbn7SjuRK82LzNP+Z1vjKOHyzQmTzdOiIvHxDxNbVPJ+JuByWaJjMTiwqnRTTKuO2h0HjXQjciJn7f0BbTRgJzJotsnx+KJw2S0TN7z1VjMVSe9dqCGN5s/1NSOK4TonpYIyg==

+Received: from PU1APC01FT039.eop-APC01.prod.protection.outlook.com

+ (10.152.252.58) by PU1APC01HT185.eop-APC01.prod.protection.outlook.com

+ (10.152.252.189) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2,

+ cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384_P384) id 15.1.977.7;

+ Thu, 30 Mar 2017 07:11:21 +0000

+Received: from SINPR04MB1949.apcprd04.prod.outlook.com (10.152.252.60) by

+ PU1APC01FT039.mail.protection.outlook.com (10.152.253.127) with

+ Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2,

+ cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384_P384) id 15.1.1005.5 via

+ Frontend Transport; Thu, 30 Mar 2017 07:11:21 +0000

+Received: from SINPR04MB1949.apcprd04.prod.outlook.com ([10.141.116.153]) by

+ SINPR04MB1949.apcprd04.prod.outlook.com ([10.141.116.153]) with mapi id

+ 15.01.0991.022; Thu, 30 Mar 2017 07:11:21 +0000

+From: Luv Khemani <luvb@hotmail.com>

+To: David Vorick <david.vorick@gmail.com>, Jared Lee Richardson

+ <jaredr26@gmail.com>, Bitcoin Protocol Discussion

+ <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>

+Thread-Topic: [bitcoin-dev] Hard fork proposal from last week's meeting

+Thread-Index: AQHSqMNonQ4DjsxFiU+7a8C6k6bCq6GsRI2AgAAb7oCAAGkzLQ==

+Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2017 07:11:21 +0000

+Message-ID: <SINPR04MB1949AB581C6870184445E0C4C2340@SINPR04MB1949.apcprd04.prod.outlook.com>

+References: <CAEgR2PEG1UMqY0hzUH4YE_an=qOvQUgfXreSRsoMWfFWxG3Vqg@mail.gmail.com>

+ <CAFVRnyq9Qgw88RZqenjQTDZHEWeuNCdh12Dq7wCGZdu9ZuEN9w@mail.gmail.com>,

+ <CAD1TkXvd4yLHZDAdMi78WwJ_siO1Vt7=DgYiBmP45ffVveuHBg@mail.gmail.com>

+In-Reply-To: <CAD1TkXvd4yLHZDAdMi78WwJ_siO1Vt7=DgYiBmP45ffVveuHBg@mail.gmail.com>

+Accept-Language: en-US

+Content-Language: en-US

+X-MS-Has-Attach:

+X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:

+authentication-results: gmail.com; dkim=none (message not signed)

+ header.d=none; gmail.com; dmarc=none action=none header.from=hotmail.com;

+x-incomingtopheadermarker: OriginalChecksum:8ED8A085A3E967CC7496685A4320639FBD811C323B1D3B081ABA379CA44F8700;

+ UpperCasedChecksum:5D5E927E1F3AC40C2F57F9C39D8B4D17D7345C8AC841F3645FBEF82476A51936;

+ SizeAsReceived:8404; Count:42

+x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1

+x-tmn: [it9R7jlWksJ44+trxL+8n5EVA8f8IFwO]

+x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; PU1APC01HT185;

+ 5:Ro00q3UWAp7XDON/KAnt3lNwHEocoRWPHacMhLQil6ikdTrTjE0SB90ucBbSUK76hnLS6nNfE/WCvxkfeajNm5fd1I2S5UTwdrBftllEdPWbMmJPomU8ZGqPHyCWhJeAWxGnPKntX7o9rUWWct/Uzg==;

+ 24:ojehugImnFQWaJdhshY8fiAVDWUWPFI/i3fkWSpbC9X7urn1XR3iJdwB5z4ay9oCivZ/AsO8K6tHhPLmdQRtF+4KUC+Xb2orqIqFgSHGYn4=;

+ 7:3pKg5UAh1iCsQAHKwEPCEysIT9qB5CkjKU64OvWdScvbn0RJp0ybVoeKop7pctIfIscLvkB849IB87aFccEK4Fsmj04fGfF/r3aQwqGc5aiimC57qP7R8llSfHibcnRchHoWX8RFMHpKb3xC29u70bb+BEpgskdU0tgiJUKQY2M/cIi+/VidpRCYrBWpVt+PafH9iXTbO1nTfZDRhyYwRnyk8ccJZBiMcFKTcQB/Rp8GD+UYkXqepeme+EXARE8EeaO5CloG3RpaC68adOqSqD7yTvgGX0TAsOXU3sd5jHuoEQushnc+2uE9uMn/6p4u

+x-incomingheadercount: 42

+x-eopattributedmessage: 0

+x-forefront-antispam-report: EFV:NLI; SFV:NSPM; SFS:(7070007)(98901004);

+ DIR:OUT; SFP:1901; SCL:1; SRVR:PU1APC01HT185;

+ H:SINPR04MB1949.apcprd04.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None;

+ LANG:en;

+x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: e894460f-91a0-4ae9-2749-08d4773bf826

+x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:; BCL:0; PCL:0;

+ RULEID:(22001)(201702061074)(5061506573)(5061507331)(1603103135)(2017031320274)(2017031322274)(1603101448)(1601125374)(1701031045);

+ SRVR:PU1APC01HT185;

+x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(444000031);

+ SRVR:PU1APC01HT185; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:PU1APC01HT185;

+x-forefront-prvs: 02622CEF0A

+spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99

+spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM

+Content-Type: multipart/alternative;

+ boundary="_000_SINPR04MB1949AB581C6870184445E0C4C2340SINPR04MB1949apcp_"

+MIME-Version: 1.0

+X-OriginatorOrg: hotmail.com

+X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 30 Mar 2017 07:11:21.4727 (UTC)

+X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Internet

+X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 84df9e7f-e9f6-40af-b435-aaaaaaaaaaaa

+X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: PU1APC01HT185

+X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,

+ DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, HTML_MESSAGE,

+ RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham version=3.3.1

+X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on

+ smtp1.linux-foundation.org

+X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 30 Mar 2017 10:58:27 +0000

+Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Hard fork proposal from last week's meeting

+X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org

+X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12

+Precedence: list

+List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol 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: Thu, 30 Mar 2017 07:11:26 -0000

+

+--_000_SINPR04MB1949AB581C6870184445E0C4C2340SINPR04MB1949apcp_

+Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

+Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

+

+

+>> If home users are not running their own full nodes, then home users have=

+ to trust and rely on other, more powerful nodes to represent them. Of cour=

+se, the more powerful nodes, simply by nature of having more power, are goi=

+ng to have different opinions and objectives from the users.

+

+>I think you're conflating mining with node operation here. Node users onl=

+y power is to block the propagation of certain things. Since miners also h=

+ave a node endpoint, they can cut the node users out of the equation by lin=

+king with eachother directly - something they already do out of practicalit=

+y for propagation. Node users do not have the power to arbitrate consensus=

+, that is why we have blocks and PoW.

+

+You are only looking at technical aspects and missing the political aspect.

+

+Node users decide what a Bitcoin is. It matters not how much hash power is =

+behind a inflationary supply chain fork, full nodes protect the user from t=

+he change of any properties of Bitcoin which they do not agree with. The ab=

+ility to retain this power for users is of prime importance and is arguably=

+ what gives Bitcoin most of it's value. Any increase in the cost to run a f=

+ull node is an increase in cost to maintain monetary sovereignty. The abili=

+ty for a user to run a node is what keeps the miners honest and prevents th=

+em from rewriting any of Bitcoin's rules.

+

+If it's still difficult to grasp the above paragraph, ask yourself the foll=

+owing questions,

+- What makes Bitcoin uncensorable

+- What gives confidence that the 21 million limit will be upheld

+- What makes transactions irreversible

+- If hashpower was king as you make it to be, why havn't miners making up m=

+ajority hashrate who want bigger blocks been able to change the blocksize?

+

+The market is not storing 10s of billions of dollars in Bitcoin despite all=

+ it's risks because it is useful for everyday transactions, that is a solve=

+d problem in every part of the world (Cash/Visa/etc..).

+

+Having said that, i fully empathise with your view that increasing transact=

+ion fees might allow competitors to gain marketshare for low value use case=

+s. By all means, we should look into ways of solving the problem. But all t=

+hese debates around blocksize is a total waste of time. Even if we fork to =

+2MB, 5MB, 10MB. It is irrelevant in the larger picture, transaction capacit=

+y will still be too low for global usage in the medium-long term. The addit=

+ional capacity from blocksize increases are linear improvements with very l=

+arge systemic costs compared with the userbase and usage which is growing e=

+xponentially. Lightning potentially offers a couple or orders of magnitude =

+of scaling and will make blocksize a non-issue for years to come. Even if i=

+t fails to live up to the hype, you should not discount the market innovati=

+ng solutions when there is money to be made.

+

+

+--_000_SINPR04MB1949AB581C6870184445E0C4C2340SINPR04MB1949apcp_

+Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"

+Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

+

+<html>

+<head>

+<meta http-equiv=3D"Content-Type" content=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-=

+1">

+<style type=3D"text/css" style=3D"display:none;"><!-- P {margin-top:0;margi=

+n-bottom:0;} --></style>

+</head>

+<body dir=3D"ltr">

+<div id=3D"divtagdefaultwrapper" style=3D"font-size:12pt;color:#000000;font=

+-family:Calibri,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;" dir=3D"ltr">

+<p><br>

+</p>

+<div>

+<div>

+<div dir=3D"ltr" style=3D"color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style=3D"font-size:12=

+.8px">&gt;&gt;&nbsp;</span><span style=3D"font-size:12.8px">If home users a=

+re not running their own full nodes, then home users have to trust and rely=

+ on other, more powerful nodes to represent them. Of

+ course, the more powerful nodes, simply by nature of having more power, ar=

+e going to have different opinions and objectives from the users.<br>

+<br>

+&gt;I think you're conflating mining with node operation here.&nbsp; Node u=

+sers only power is to block the propagation of certain things.&nbsp; Since =

+miners also have a node endpoint, they can cut the node users out of the eq=

+uation by linking with eachother directly - something

+ they already do out of practicality for propagation.&nbsp; Node users do n=

+ot have the power to arbitrate consensus, that is why we have blocks and Po=

+W.</span></div>

+<div dir=3D"ltr" style=3D"color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style=3D"font-size:12=

+.8px"><br>

+</span></div>

+<div dir=3D"ltr" style=3D"color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style=3D"font-family:=

+ &quot;Comic Sans MS&quot;, fantasy, cursive; font-size: 10pt;">You are onl=

+y looking at technical aspects and missing the political aspect.</span></di=

+v>

+<div dir=3D"ltr" style=3D"color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style=3D"font-family:=

+ &quot;Comic Sans MS&quot;, fantasy, cursive; font-size: 10pt;"><br>

+</span></div>

+<div dir=3D"ltr" style=3D"color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style=3D"font-family:=

+ &quot;Comic Sans MS&quot;, fantasy, cursive; font-size: 10pt;">Node users =

+decide what a Bitcoin is. It matters not how much hash&nbsp;power is behind=

+ a inflationary supply chain&nbsp;fork, full nodes protect

+ the user from the change of any properties of Bitcoin which they do not ag=

+ree with. The ability to retain this power for users is of prime importance=

+ and is arguably what gives Bitcoin most of it's value. Any increase in the=

+ cost to run a full node is an increase

+ in cost to maintain monetary sovereignty. The ability for a user to run a =

+node is what keeps the miners honest and prevents them from rewriting any o=

+f Bitcoin's rules.</span><br>

+</div>

+<div dir=3D"ltr" style=3D"color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style=3D"font-family:=

+ &quot;Comic Sans MS&quot;, fantasy, cursive; font-size: 10pt;"><br>

+</span></div>

+<div dir=3D"ltr" style=3D"color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style=3D"font-family:=

+ &quot;Comic Sans MS&quot;, fantasy, cursive; font-size: 10pt;">If it's sti=

+ll difficult to grasp the above paragraph, ask yourself the following quest=

+ions,</span></div>

+<div dir=3D"ltr" style=3D"color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style=3D"font-family:=

+ &quot;Comic Sans MS&quot;, fantasy, cursive; font-size: 10pt;">- What make=

+s Bitcoin uncensorable</span></div>

+<div dir=3D"ltr" style=3D"color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style=3D"font-family:=

+ &quot;Comic Sans MS&quot;, fantasy, cursive; font-size: 10pt;">- What give=

+s confidence that the 21 million limit will be upheld</span></div>

+<div dir=3D"ltr" style=3D"color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style=3D"font-family:=

+ &quot;Comic Sans MS&quot;, fantasy, cursive; font-size: 10pt;">- What make=

+s transactions irreversible</span></div>

+<div dir=3D"ltr"><font face=3D"Comic Sans MS, fantasy, cursive"><span style=

+=3D"font-size: 10pt;">- If hashpower was king as you make it to be, why

+</span><span style=3D"font-size: 13.3333px;">havn't</span><span style=3D"fo=

+nt-size: 10pt;">&nbsp;miners making up majority hashrate who want bigger bl=

+ocks been able to change the blocksize?</span></font></div>

+<div dir=3D"ltr" style=3D"color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br>

+</div>

+<div dir=3D"ltr" style=3D"color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><font face=3D"Comic Sans MS=

+, fantasy, cursive"><span style=3D"font-size: 13.3333px;">The market is not=

+ storing 10s of billions of dollars in Bitcoin despite all it's risks&nbsp;=

+because it is useful for everyday transactions,

+ that is a solved problem in every part of the world (Cash/Visa/etc..).&nbs=

+p;</span></font></div>

+<div dir=3D"ltr" style=3D"color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><font face=3D"Comic Sans MS=

+, fantasy, cursive"><span style=3D"font-size: 13.3333px;"><br>

+</span></font></div>

+<div dir=3D"ltr" style=3D"color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><font face=3D"Comic Sans MS=

+, fantasy, cursive"><span style=3D"font-size: 13.3333px;">Having said that,=

+ i fully empathise with your view that increasing transaction fees might al=

+low competitors to gain marketshare for

+ low value use cases. By all means, we should look into ways of&nbsp;solvin=

+g the problem. But all these&nbsp;debates around blocksize is a total waste=

+ of time. Even if we fork to 2MB, 5MB, 10MB. It is irrelevant in the larger=

+ picture, transaction capacity will still

+ be too low for global usage in the medium-long term. The additional capaci=

+ty from blocksize increases are linear improvements with very large systemi=

+c&nbsp;costs compared with the userbase and usage which is growing exponent=

+ially. Lightning potentially offers a

+ couple or orders of magnitude of scaling and will make blocksize a non-iss=

+ue for years to come. Even if it fails to live up to the hype, you should n=

+ot discount the market innovating solutions when there is money to be made.=

+</span></font></div>

+<div dir=3D"ltr" style=3D"color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">

+<div><br>

+</div>

+</div>

+</div>

+</div>

+</div>

+</body>

+</html>

+

+--_000_SINPR04MB1949AB581C6870184445E0C4C2340SINPR04MB1949apcp_--

+