MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAFnMCfd8N_2nvspXF+Tro_SsofUUrMy4_QG9tRbPm1pUWtUCXQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAFnMCfd8N_2nvspXF+Tro_SsofUUrMy4_QG9tRbPm1pUWtUCXQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2015 14:00:49 +0100
Message-ID: <CALqxMTFJD5HrPjt=Ua5yFti9R_rj1gpFGGOKQb__xj8Bb4epGQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Adam Back <adam@cypherspace.org>
To: =?UTF-8?B?SsOpcsO0bWUgTGVnb3VwaWw=?= <jjlegoupil@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proposed alternatives to the 20MB step
Precedence: list

Agree with everything you said.  Spot on observations on all counts.
Thank you for speaking up.

Adam

On 1 June 2015 at 13:45, J=C3=A9r=C3=B4me Legoupil <jjlegoupil@gmail.com> w=
rote:
>>What do other people think?
>>
>>
>>If we can't come to an agreement soon, then I'll ask for help
>>reviewing/submitting patches to Mike's Bitcoin-Xt project that implement =
a
>>big increase now that grows over time so we may never have to go through
>>all this rancor and debate again."
>>
>>
>>I'll then ask for help lobbying the merchant services and exchanges and
>>hosted wallet companies and other bitcoind-using-infrastructure companies
>
>
> It's surprising to see a core dev going to the public to defend a proposa=
l
> most other core devs disagree on, and then lobbying the Bitcoin ecosystem=
.
>
> This is an very unhealthy way to go because it incentives the other core
> devs to stop their technical work and go public and lobby too (cf G.Maxwe=
ll
> trying to raise redditters awareness).
>
> We need core devs to work on technical issues, not waste time doing
> politics, but Gavin's confrontational approach doesn't give them much of =
a
> choice.
>
> I fear that because of this approach, in the next monthes, core devs with=
 be
> lobbying and doing politics : precious time will be wasted for everyone
> having stake in Bitcoin.
>
>
> Regarding the 20MB proposal content:
>
> Decentralization is the core of Bitcoin's security model and thus that's
> what gives Bitcoin its value.
>
> The danger is that decentralization tends naturally towards centralizatio=
n,
> because centralization is more efficient. Going from decentralization to
> centralization is easy, going the other way is a lot harder :
> decentralization we lose, may never be gained back.
>
> Regarding "the urgency to do something":
>
> I believe it would be extremely healthy for the network to bump into any
> limit ASAP ... (let it be 1MB) : to incentive layer 2 and offchain soluti=
ons
> to scale Bitcoin : there are promising designs/solutions out there (LN,
> ChainDB, OtherCoin protocole, ...), but most don't get much attention,
> because there is right now no need for them. And, I am sure new solutions
> will be invented.
>
> If during the "1MB bumpy period" something goes wrong, consensus among th=
e
> community would be reached easily if necessary.
>
> Pretending there is urgency and that Apocalypse is approaching is a falla=
cy.
>
> The Gavin 20MB proposal is compromising Bitcoin's long-term security in a=
n
> irreversible way, for gaining short-term better user experience.
>
> I oppose the Gavin proposal in both content and form.
>
> Cheers,
> Jerome
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-----
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>