Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CAC12E28 for ; Tue, 9 Feb 2016 02:45:50 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: delayed 04:21:48 by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from homiemail-a7.g.dreamhost.com (homie.mail.dreamhost.com [208.97.132.208]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0BD32138 for ; Tue, 9 Feb 2016 02:45:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from homiemail-a7.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by homiemail-a7.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CC4725C06B; Mon, 8 Feb 2016 18:45:49 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=taoeffect.com; h= content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :message-id:references:to; s=taoeffect.com; bh=kMwgKcqw/MEod17b8 p7wtIyt2Y0=; b=yETD4zhBnjwxbvrkCYdIMVc2OPlBKslDb6UvVVfkjXf/sT0MG s6lsMvLd0uNibKnOywIIqKsURUjgQ5LdV+mfeH6a9ubY5yfVILP8Bfwdlloz07qG cnhiI3iDOm0ZqcA+GNZ5if5eFfHUyHIv4pC2SFrSlBmB8PGY11G7sCKyS4= Received: from [192.168.42.65] (50-0-163-57.dsl.dynamic.fusionbroadband.com [50.0.163.57]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: contact@taoeffect.com) by homiemail-a7.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5EF9825C063; Mon, 8 Feb 2016 18:45:49 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_D260EE8C-5454-4694-B8EB-7ABDB4DF4193"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.2 \(3112\)) X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.6b2 From: Tao Effect In-Reply-To: Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2016 18:45:47 -0800 X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 476678747.59452-fad4743bbb84c560e17c55c5f481d02e Message-Id: <0034586B-0885-415D-9423-95B888B01106@taoeffect.com> References: <56B8EBF8.4050602@mattcorallo.com> <236601d162b0$8da286e0$a8e794a0$@xbt.hk> <28C17F9B-AD69-4962-8C8F-0D983FA917ED@taoeffect.com> To: Chris Priest X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3112) X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, 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 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 09 Feb 2016 03:49:50 +0000 Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] On Hardforks in the Context of SegWit X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2016 02:45:50 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_D260EE8C-5454-4694-B8EB-7ABDB4DF4193 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Look, if we=E2=80=99re going to declare something an emergency, we = cannot on the one hand say things like: "I strongly believe bitcoin has = no place in the world if the fee raise much higher than a few cents per = typically-sized transaction=E2=80=9D, and on the other declare that = there is an emergency worth redefining what *Bitcoin is* because the = average txn fee is on the order of 7 cents [1] and has remained = reasonable for some time [2]. If you=E2=80=99d like to understand what a qualifying emergency looks = like, read the links: > = http://bitledger.info/why-a-hard-fork-should-be-fought-and-its-not-evil-to= -discuss/ >=20 > And here: >=20 > = http://bitledger.info/hard-fork-risks-and-why-95-should-be-the-standard/ In terms of scaling, we are nowhere close to an emergency. Scaling is priority #4, maybe, and it=E2=80=99s being taken care of. Meanwhile, we should be directing our attention one the more pressing = and serious concerns like mining centralization & privacy. Mining centralization is a serious issue. It is *not cool* that 4 dudes = (and 1 government) have the power to redefine what Bitcoin is *right = now*. Relevant post with suggestions for fixing that: = https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/44kwf0/the_hardfork_that_bitcoin= _really_needs_not/czrh3na As far as I can tell, P2Pool & GBT are not the same thing, but I=E2=80=99v= e been told that P2Pool might use GBT in some way, even though it=E2=80=99= s listed on the wiki as not using it. [3] A hard fork would ideally enforce decentralized mining pools somehow so = that transaction selection is done at the edges instead of the center. Cheers, Greg [1] http://www.cointape.com/ [2] https://blockchain.info/charts/transaction-fees [3] https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Comparison_of_mining_pools > On Feb 8, 2016, at 4:54 PM, Chris Priest wrote: >=20 >> Also, if you=E2=80=99re going to do a hard fork, you=E2=80=99d better = make the most of it as hard forks must be a *rare* = world-is-ending-if-we-don=E2=80=99t-do-it thing >=20 > In my opinion, the network publishing more than 1MB worth of > transactions while the limit is still 1MB *is* an emergency worthy of > a hard fork. >=20 > If that's not an emergency, then what is? >=20 > I strongly believe bitcoin has no place in the world if the fee raise > much higher than a few cents per typically-sized transaction. >=20 > On 2/8/16, Tao Effect via bitcoin-dev > wrote: >> Hard forks should always come in response to some major crisis that = all >> participants can agree is an actual crisis, as per the excellent = rational >> here: >>=20 >> = http://bitledger.info/why-a-hard-fork-should-be-fought-and-its-not-evil-to= -discuss/ >>=20 >> And here: >>=20 >> = http://bitledger.info/hard-fork-risks-and-why-95-should-be-the-standard/ >>=20 >> Also, if you=E2=80=99re going to do a hard fork, you=E2=80=99d better = make the most of it as >> hard forks must be a *rare* world-is-ending-if-we-don=E2=80=99t-do-it = thing >> (otherwise Bitcoin cannot be considered decentralized in any sense of = the >> word). >>=20 >> So for any sort of hard fork, be sure to address the real threats and >> challenges that are facing Bitcoin today: >>=20 >> 1. Mining centralization. >> 2. Privacy. >>=20 >> Best regards, >> Greg Slepak >>=20 --Apple-Mail=_D260EE8C-5454-4694-B8EB-7ABDB4DF4193 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJWuVLbAAoJEOxnICvpCVJHqXUP+wWvZq/B8/EYJShaB93wfcy2 mI8WIvdpcZCFTwMXY0WlJu/JdSLn3rnS+H1OTb8Fxk7jZOlYSmtOpJEB87czF+zZ gp+20ZHvCIJ3hOItETlVmZa8x3bSJ4wFmFpld5J1Y3CLoFBXmcNrWD10BSyeKfJu iiDOAeHZmrhWB2P0dRFdPOF4SFYKo0esm/0vvCup+yD9gOKvT57hJXC2n+KFbu4a kc7PnAIY0d5DwhhCZVmsahUueCH2wLbd2i9azeEWnybPZRx+f7xnFujGLb29tmbo XGrUTqfFAkl9ah3dSf7w4ABCoJZmz3qawJ+aW44OWlnyZzWx/Ul1VO0QtJ2evWMp P6j9A2CvVlB7jw/yR9E52Ey5yfry+Jv5P049Vrt+OjaMZ1T0NZ8vv0uxp0acArAF lzM5rbJbNOfzCvQOU6f2UenaPJGhzeEOr7UnaMuzlPJkPeAr2YumBp/kRWJwLTRD iudMxwKrHiAvd1XitrGP7yqEjJzCzU0pJ3talQJPgOL8o3rX4I/GChkJEkyaipTX Rlr3VYN8za0YC21BqLcIWN8fTh0daeDwzWZi6JAuq4WzTn4Ur+4qAtGUEW/JnrBj CVkgmDAqHWLWtzR7Wcyf3P8VxY7AchtIfI4DhMyAlQTsn9QEFmSDRaJJY8CQ/wEh b0rmtq1nSMvmsEvIR7Ph =0jau -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_D260EE8C-5454-4694-B8EB-7ABDB4DF4193--