1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
|
Return-Path: <btcdrak@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4946489E
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 21 Aug 2015 11:29:01 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-ig0-f178.google.com (mail-ig0-f178.google.com
[209.85.213.178])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C4322EA
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 21 Aug 2015 11:29:00 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by igfj19 with SMTP id j19so15488479igf.0
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 21 Aug 2015 04:29:00 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to
:cc:content-type;
bh=oHVmxaslo6dXG/FMEn5zZ5B+O8HJ0AHd5b/C8RqWoAE=;
b=QR/6rRXXyhI4Uy/OYGJYTOj24mMsFdepX0CDjHrcMamY36pIFT4q4bfFRDWc4o+sLZ
lYIGc95MMY+AvWFcaFpXGqmZGpDiSp8fpHa9W/ZNvpDIRagFuDpkNALZp2SQ1RTlxfTA
3QNSLWh/+DbWhhMxhE5KELPH3LhrCX9c1/OAT4AyHGQHg3F/WYg5q8iwseD5hAxbFbfp
0aZ7/jY7UPd7tLRNopNSPPAbSpaJcNrN445bYmf+GR0sGFIrBCXVf779YgEQe7X8RsRS
1Ydfvwi9EQTMIUBZdfENzAhttBTEJ/HsV1n+1PtnpYaz8E9Bre2podJOeiMHLQe1AVxi
qjUQ==
X-Received: by 10.50.66.232 with SMTP id i8mr2266891igt.34.1440156540300; Fri,
21 Aug 2015 04:29:00 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.79.81.199 with HTTP; Fri, 21 Aug 2015 04:28:41 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAHcfU-XrSA6p_2AJJ1W6KmatkEZdvh1W4ruA-upq4wPWoaJTNQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+1nnrk1EWd7rhwj91p1rqgGVFgOT4UYq=+Nmq41sHJYmy7YYA@mail.gmail.com>
<CAAS2fgR4bsJtC99-fK1L+FsQT7vOfOpz9FOVqvAnqbpkaRJHLQ@mail.gmail.com>
<BE291934-F40A-4163-834C-6B3FFBD7C4E0@petertodd.org>
<CADJgMzucVKgQQtzwBNMcU3Vy=ae+2jMQY=am_xYXcKtyforpUg@mail.gmail.com>
<3B2A58B3-6AF6-4F1C-A6FA-7AEC97F48AD0@petertodd.org>
<CAHcfU-XrSA6p_2AJJ1W6KmatkEZdvh1W4ruA-upq4wPWoaJTNQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Btc Drak <btcdrak@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2015 12:28:41 +0100
Message-ID: <CADJgMzuBKauAX_tf4ZCxtErfz9Rq7ri3=8S9ZiKou6CPwP8cQw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Yifu Guo <yifu@coinapex.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, HK_RANDOM_ENVFROM,
HK_RANDOM_FROM, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=no version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Cc: Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Core Devs : can you share your thoughts about all
BIPs on this website ?
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2015 11:29:01 -0000
On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 11:55 AM, Yifu Guo via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> I like the intend of this attempt to bring more clarity to the blocksize
> debate, however it would be more help to make this a information site about
> the current outstanding BIPs and summarize their differences rather than
> voting mechanism.
> (ofcourse the author of the BIPs would "vote" for their own proposals.)
>
> It would be good to include supporting and counter statements regards to
> these BIPs on the site.
> in addition to highlight certain things like pools in china have voiced
> their opinion that increase should happen, and 8mb is something they are
> comfortable with, which is not directly related to a single BIP, but never
> the less relevant in this discussion.
I was rather surprised by the tweet from AntPool[1] today saying that
they support big blocks and would be prepared to upgrade to XT. Pools
have stated that they are willing to increase to a maximum of 8MB, but
upgrading to XT puts them on a schedule towards 8GB which is clearly
not what they have agreed to.
Do you have any insights into what's going on there?
Also do you have any insight into what Chinese pools would accept as a
compromise in terms of raising the blocksize limit?
Drak
[1] https://twitter.com/JihanWu/status/633288343338381314
|
