MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <B2C858C1-B15F-49F1-BF7E-02EA7C3FE474@gmx.com>
References: <CAPkFh0s-o6BXAEC-s9s1UmFwVfMFQKStoJaM0u2Lct9yiP5QBQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<B2C858C1-B15F-49F1-BF7E-02EA7C3FE474@gmx.com>
From: Johnathan Corgan <johnathan@corganlabs.com>
Date: Sat, 14 Nov 2015 22:04:10 -0800
Message-ID: <CALOxbZtt8k4Q+h0ZwKDQS7-UUpYKoM0dNd8vXUg5Z9i1MCf_iw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Peter R <peter_r@gmx.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e01228934de707705248e108b
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] How to evaluate block size increase suggestions.
Precedence: list

--089e01228934de707705248e108b
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

This topic is straying from Bitcoin development into general Bitcoin
governance, policy, or other meta-issues.

We have now the new bitcoin-discuss mailing list now, specifically for
these more free-flowing topics:

https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-discuss

Please take further discussion of this thread to that forum.

Thank you,

The bitcoin-dev moderation team


On Sat, Nov 14, 2015 at 1:45 PM, Peter R via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> > It looks like some specific meta-level criteria would help more at this
> point than new proposals all exploring a different variants of block size
> increase schedules.
>
> I agree.  In fact, I=E2=80=99ll go meta on your meta and suggest that we =
should
> first discuss how Bitcoin should be governed in the first place.  Should
> Bitcoin evolve from the =E2=80=9Cbottom up,=E2=80=9D or from the =E2=80=
=9Ctop down=E2=80=9D?
>
> If one=E2=80=99s answer is from the =E2=80=9Ctop-down,=E2=80=9D then the =
meta-level criteria can
> be endlessly debated, for they all involve some sort of tradeoff, they al=
l
> require some sort of compromise.  The =E2=80=9Ctop down=E2=80=9D perspect=
ive holds that
> people might make poor choices if given the freedom to easily do so--it
> holds that the trade-offs must be balanced instead by experts.
>
> However, if one's answer is from the =E2=80=9Cbottom up,=E2=80=9D then th=
e meta-level
> criteria is very easy: we do what the people wants. We allow the people t=
o
> weigh the tradeoffs and then we watch as consensus emerges through a
> decentralized process, objectively represented by the longest proof-of-wo=
rk
> chain.
>
> Regarding the block size limit debate, at the end of the day it comes dow=
n
> to two things:
>
> 1.  How big of a block will my node accept today?
>
> 2.  What do I want my node to do if the longest chain includes a block
> larger than the limit I set?
>
> If one concedes that Bitcoin should be governed from the =E2=80=9Cbottom =
up,=E2=80=9D then
> it is already possible to empower each node operator to more easily expre=
ss
> his free choice regarding the size of blocks he is willing to accept, whi=
le
> simultaneously ensuring that his node tracks consensus.
>
> Best regards,
> Peter
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>

--089e01228934de707705248e108b
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_default" style=3D"font-size:small">Thi=
s topic is straying from Bitcoin development into general Bitcoin governanc=
e, policy, or other meta-issues.</div><div class=3D"gmail_default" style=3D=
"font-size:small"><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_default" style=3D"font-size=
:small">We have now the new bitcoin-discuss mailing list now, specifically =
for these more free-flowing topics:</div><div class=3D"gmail_default" style=
=3D"font-size:small"><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_default" style=3D""><a h=
ref=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-discuss">=
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-discuss</a><br><=
/div><div class=3D"gmail_default" style=3D""><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_=
default" style=3D"">Please take further discussion of this thread to that f=
orum.</div><div class=3D"gmail_default" style=3D""><br></div><div class=3D"=
gmail_default" style=3D"">Thank you,</div><div class=3D"gmail_default" styl=
e=3D""><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_default" style=3D"">The bitcoin-dev mo=
deration team</div><div class=3D"gmail_default" style=3D""><br></div><div c=
lass=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Sat, Nov 14, 2015 at=
 1:45 PM, Peter R via bitcoin-dev <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:b=
itcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.l=
inuxfoundation.org</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quot=
e" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">=
<span class=3D"">&gt; It looks like some specific meta-level criteria would=
 help more at this point than new proposals all exploring a different varia=
nts of block size increase schedules.<br>
<br>
</span>I agree.=C2=A0 In fact, I=E2=80=99ll go meta on your meta and sugges=
t that we should first discuss how Bitcoin should be governed in the first =
place.=C2=A0 Should Bitcoin evolve from the =E2=80=9Cbottom up,=E2=80=9D or=
 from the =E2=80=9Ctop down=E2=80=9D?<br>
<br>
If one=E2=80=99s answer is from the =E2=80=9Ctop-down,=E2=80=9D then the me=
ta-level criteria can be endlessly debated, for they all involve some sort =
of tradeoff, they all require some sort of compromise.=C2=A0 The =E2=80=9Ct=
op down=E2=80=9D perspective holds that people might make poor choices if g=
iven the freedom to easily do so--it holds that the trade-offs must be bala=
nced instead by experts.<br>
<br>
However, if one&#39;s answer is from the =E2=80=9Cbottom up,=E2=80=9D then =
the meta-level criteria is very easy: we do what the people wants. We allow=
 the people to weigh the tradeoffs and then we watch as consensus emerges t=
hrough a decentralized process, objectively represented by the longest proo=
f-of-work chain.<br>
<br>
Regarding the block size limit debate, at the end of the day it comes down =
to two things:<br>
<br>
1.=C2=A0 How big of a block will my node accept today?<br>
<br>
2.=C2=A0 What do I want my node to do if the longest chain includes a block=
 larger than the limit I set?<br>
<br>
If one concedes that Bitcoin should be governed from the =E2=80=9Cbottom up=
,=E2=80=9D then it is already possible to empower each node operator to mor=
e easily express his free choice regarding the size of blocks he is willing=
 to accept, while simultaneously ensuring that his node tracks consensus.<b=
r>
<br>
Best regards,<br>
Peter<br>
<div class=3D"HOEnZb"><div class=3D"h5"><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.=
linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" =
rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail=
man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a></div></div></blockquote></div>
</div></div>

--089e01228934de707705248e108b--