Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6D31E89C for ; Wed, 8 Feb 2017 15:57:24 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-lf0-f45.google.com (mail-lf0-f45.google.com [209.85.215.45]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 754F11B7 for ; Wed, 8 Feb 2017 15:57:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-lf0-f45.google.com with SMTP id v186so84604131lfa.1 for ; Wed, 08 Feb 2017 07:57:23 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=xoep+59Sic8xWTgPpJ4CiE1SpM2Qui3hHHalTOcPtHk=; b=XnSRJpnTmtj4novbv4EwkIvdeXRw9ZDUJ/LM9TP6Ap/RgXs6uanMWncxnjqby4Zg8S K9sbbm4axXVJKog8ruEgcE4wKZU+ZjM5CA/Qc98lX8QxiDmwczuYcPy5mPhe4xF+maOD jxzUZD6LyhlIFF7ggrqo6tcPvvl8h59glWIXBbMxC2qwWjuz8vGH18Nsm2RsJrLv/d85 Dp4PNz3vi5nFlzizxV7vGbexnKBtY1F1l/b/uVZWL7Gd9tTMItmTxYtvx+npxdln743x jM4hGA5vdL6LY9zMqJ629RPIBw4eM5dNFA9zfqXhHYN1DmHsPylB3ZB6goFItShESzWd II1g== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=xoep+59Sic8xWTgPpJ4CiE1SpM2Qui3hHHalTOcPtHk=; b=afesptwKgtgJZud9QZm0O0T7KcrONHJOoimX62vLGI2rNhuaYhwDL4hEUf7s02evvJ rvSlxxXo6yUJ+jLqQrW3Jio+wt7Cj+H8mRzsLcYqnyJ1Puwbco+NdyvkA9U06cKTiq2H inWn9N2ffEXC0Sc1mupClatAbNxocviOrIEHlnL8dEyKIusAjPnn0C+w2QtO1QFqgads J1i1OrIb0Kr4AzYTFKXtvllt9osuX2TNXFDg18KqvdRiZt17K05sR82QuXzhA2AlNGc+ UE0uotChQ7AvF0zKiNj871tk7ro8xeaeNEcS7lbuANDIKmWSzhyXAYGz12Slvw2zfuTD lMig== X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39l6nFz/kD7Bp4w7C16X6Go2ksH4RrOsgIEd2v47g6/FKB3+PEUmu76yb7JBKtrdeFJovcdsPSYXpM7c8w== X-Received: by 10.46.71.132 with SMTP id u126mr8207129lja.43.1486569441862; Wed, 08 Feb 2017 07:57:21 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.25.21.92 with HTTP; Wed, 8 Feb 2017 07:57:21 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.25.21.92 with HTTP; Wed, 8 Feb 2017 07:57:21 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <201702052302.29599.luke@dashjr.org> <201702061953.40774.luke@dashjr.org> From: alp alp Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2017 09:57:21 -0600 Message-ID: To: Andrew Johnson Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113db2fa842b31054806eb5a 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: Fri, 10 Feb 2017 10:23:41 +0000 Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] A Modified Version of Luke-jr's Block Size BIP X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2017 15:57:24 -0000 --001a113db2fa842b31054806eb5a Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 10% is not a tiny minority. On Feb 8, 2017 9:51 AM, "Andrew Johnson" wrote: > You're never going to reach 100% agreement, and stifling the network > literally forever to please a tiny minority is daft. > > On Feb 8, 2017 8:52 AM, "alp alp via bitcoin-dev" linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > 10% say literally never. That seems like a significant disenfranchisement > and lack of consensus. > > On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 2:25 PM, t. khan via bitcoin-dev < > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > >> On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 2:53 PM, Luke Dashjr wrote: >> >>> On Monday, February 06, 2017 6:19:43 PM you wrote: >>> > >My BIP draft didn't make progress because the community opposes any >>> block >>> > >size increase hardfork ever. >>> > >>> > Luke, how do you know the community opposes that? Specifically, how >>> did you >>> > come to this conclusion? >>> >>> http://www.strawpoll.me/12228388/r >> >> >> That poll shows 63% of votes want a larger than 1 MB block by this >> summer. How do you go from that to "the community opposes any block >> increase ever"? It shows the exact opposite of that. >> >> >>> > >Your version doesn't address the current block size >>> > >issues (ie, the blocks being too large). >>> > >>> > Why do you think blocks are "too large"? Please cite some evidence. >>> I've >>> > asked this before and you ignored it, but an answer would be helpful >>> to the >>> > discussion. >>> >>> Full node count is far below the safe minimum of 85% of economic >>> activity. >>> >> >> Is this causing a problem now? If so, what? >> >> >>> Typically reasons given for people not using full nodes themselves come >>> down >>> to the high resource requirements caused by the block size. >> >> >> The reason people stop running nodes is because there's no incentive to >> counteract the resource costs. Attempting to solve this by making blocks >> *smaller* is like curing a disease by killing the patient. (Incentivizing >> full node operation would fix that problem.) >> >> - t.k. >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> bitcoin-dev mailing list >> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org >> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > > > --001a113db2fa842b31054806eb5a Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
10% is not a tiny minority.

On Feb 8, 2017 9:51 AM, "Andrew John= son" <andrew.johnson8= 3@gmail.com> wrote:
You're never going to reach 100% agreemen= t, and stifling the network literally forever to please a tiny minority is = daft.

On Feb 8= , 2017 8:52 AM, "alp alp via bitcoin-dev" <bitcoin-dev@lists.<= wbr>linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
10% say literally never= .=C2=A0 That seems like a significant disenfranchisement and lack of consen= sus.

On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 2:25 PM, t= . khan via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfounda<= wbr>tion.org> wrote:
=
On M= on, Feb 6, 2017 at 2:53 PM, Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org> wrot= e:
On Monday, February 06, 2017 6:19:43 PM you= wrote:
> >My BIP draft didn't make progress because the community oppose= s any block
> >size increase hardfork ever.
>
> Luke, how do you know the community o= pposes that? Specifically, how did you
> come to this conclusion?

http://www.strawpoll.me/12228388/r

That poll shows 63% of votes want a larger than 1 MB blo= ck by this summer. How do you go from that to "the community opposes a= ny block increase ever"? It shows the exact opposite of that.
=C2= =A0
> >Your version doesn't address the current block size
> >issues (ie, the blocks being too large).
>
> Why do you think blocks are "too large"? Please cite some ev= idence. I've
> asked this before and you ignored it, but an answer would be helpful t= o the
> discussion.

Full node count is far below the safe minimum of 85% of econo= mic activity.

Is this causing a problem= now? If so, what?
=C2=A0
Typically reasons given for people not using full nodes themselves come dow= n
to the high resource requirements caused by the block size.

The reason people stop running nodes is because there'= s no incentive to counteract the resource costs. Attempting to solve this b= y making blocks *smaller* is like curing a disease by killing the patient. = (Incentivizing full node operation would fix that problem.)
<= br>
- t.k.


________________= _______________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
= bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org= /mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev



_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
= bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org= /mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev


--001a113db2fa842b31054806eb5a--