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>
Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP 102 - kick the can down the road to 2MB
Precedence: list

-----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-----