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
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
|
Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <mh.in.england@gmail.com>) id 1YqNji-000097-GH
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Thu, 07 May 2015 15:29:18 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.212.179 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.212.179; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com;
helo=mail-wi0-f179.google.com;
Received: from mail-wi0-f179.google.com ([209.85.212.179])
by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1YqNjg-0001Jh-MN
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Thu, 07 May 2015 15:29:18 +0000
Received: by wief7 with SMTP id f7so16650971wie.0
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Thu, 07 May 2015 08:29:10 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.12.228 with SMTP id b4mr5994035wic.92.1431012550684;
Thu, 07 May 2015 08:29:10 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com
Received: by 10.194.90.114 with HTTP; Thu, 7 May 2015 08:29:10 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAJHLa0Nrp4QEQqrBu6Tb+dohxX2VhWKMnO40xscZF1OJdfPF-A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <554A91BE.6060105@bluematt.me>
<CANEZrP3wGWHdz+ut6pvke5TJJsc1rTFt8sn2KziX35oL5LAsyg@mail.gmail.com>
<CABm2gDpDvk2VsQ+mJ-BoeBKmvu9jBXNujZEFKuCStRNjFL6VOA@mail.gmail.com>
<CANEZrP2zAGCCBhNa4=9yw+A_Dn5o4SQXoPTE_qcJzZ1dFuF2tw@mail.gmail.com>
<CABm2gDqd6iHRUDKZWWTudcC1QkYa+rCuHjz7pMC2K1Db8wpgfA@mail.gmail.com>
<CANEZrP1CU0kB0vXeXUX1L8byaT-Zf2xg+3N+GeNthi_i6bn1qw@mail.gmail.com>
<CABsx9T2Nxvr4fqREMw3_LXftzsxrUAR1+9sVMa8_EpTnH1nN1Q@mail.gmail.com>
<CAPWm=eUFe7dKJCLeNACZ4n9vw0Xj9rHVM_RRLSczGXNU-ShR2w@mail.gmail.com>
<CANEZrP1tCda9EbYgYu5QHN8ZgBCtGP7zRiDaXnq-rWU0ZHR9NQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CAJHLa0Nrp4QEQqrBu6Tb+dohxX2VhWKMnO40xscZF1OJdfPF-A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 7 May 2015 17:29:10 +0200
X-Google-Sender-Auth: UnkzP4ruiyg4kG0Ldy4RDitN7rQ
Message-ID: <CANEZrP0bmh5braGO5OKTNJU9VC_9=_1RDqHMx=aJBxT1w-q8oA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
To: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@bitpay.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c2a3a8c0b55505157f92de
X-Spam-Score: -0.5 (/)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
-1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for
sender-domain
0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
(mh.in.england[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature,
not necessarily valid
-0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
X-Headers-End: 1YqNjg-0001Jh-MN
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Block Size Increase
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 May 2015 15:29:18 -0000
--001a11c2a3a8c0b55505157f92de
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> It is a trivial *code* change. It is not a trivial change to the
> economics of a $3.2B system.
>
Hmm - again I'd argue the opposite.
Up until now Bitcoin has been unconstrained by the hard block size limit.
If we raise it, Bitcoin will continue to be unconstrained by it. That's the
default "continue as we are" position.
If it's not raised, then ....... well, then we're in new territory
entirely. Businesses built on the assumption that Bitcoin could become
popular will suddenly have their basic assumptions invalidated. Users will
leave. The technical code change would be zero, but the economic change
would be significant.
--001a11c2a3a8c0b55505157f92de
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><blo=
ckquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #c=
cc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div=
class=3D"gmail_quote"><div>It is a trivial <i>code</i> change.=C2=A0 It is=
not a trivial change to the economics of a $3.2B system.</div></div></div>=
</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Hmm - again I'd argue the opposi=
te.</div><div><br></div><div>Up until now Bitcoin has been unconstrained by=
the hard block size limit.</div><div><br></div><div>If we raise it, Bitcoi=
n will continue to be unconstrained by it. That's the default "con=
tinue as we are" position.</div><div><br></div><div>If it's not ra=
ised, then ....... well, then we're in new territory entirely. Business=
es built on the assumption that Bitcoin could become popular will suddenly =
have their basic assumptions invalidated. Users will leave. The technical c=
ode change would be zero, but the economic change would be significant.</di=
v></div></div></div>
--001a11c2a3a8c0b55505157f92de--
|
