path: root/15/7e53aa80c4d2b3f4f80e7d01bd02564152272a

Return-Path: <contact@taoeffect.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
	[172.17.192.35])
	by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CAC12E28
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Tue,  9 Feb 2016 02:45:50 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: delayed 04:21:48 by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from homiemail-a7.g.dreamhost.com (homie.mail.dreamhost.com
	[208.97.132.208])
	by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0BD32138
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Tue,  9 Feb 2016 02:45:49 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from homiemail-a7.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by homiemail-a7.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CC4725C06B;
	Mon,  8 Feb 2016 18:45:49 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=taoeffect.com; h=
	content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc
	:message-id:references:to; s=taoeffect.com; bh=kMwgKcqw/MEod17b8
	p7wtIyt2Y0=; b=yETD4zhBnjwxbvrkCYdIMVc2OPlBKslDb6UvVVfkjXf/sT0MG
	s6lsMvLd0uNibKnOywIIqKsURUjgQ5LdV+mfeH6a9ubY5yfVILP8Bfwdlloz07qG
	cnhiI3iDOm0ZqcA+GNZ5if5eFfHUyHIv4pC2SFrSlBmB8PGY11G7sCKyS4=
Received: from [192.168.42.65] (50-0-163-57.dsl.dynamic.fusionbroadband.com
	[50.0.163.57])
	(using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	(Authenticated sender: contact@taoeffect.com)
	by homiemail-a7.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5EF9825C063; 
	Mon,  8 Feb 2016 18:45:49 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: multipart/signed;
	boundary="Apple-Mail=_D260EE8C-5454-4694-B8EB-7ABDB4DF4193";
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.2 \(3112\))
X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.6b2
From: Tao Effect <contact@taoeffect.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAAcC9yuJY3Lsd7Z0rx8TFLNT1fJLhrpxzKJREQ7FmdNNjdXJow@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2016 18:45:47 -0800
X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 476678747.59452-fad4743bbb84c560e17c55c5f481d02e
Message-Id: <0034586B-0885-415D-9423-95B888B01106@taoeffect.com>
References: <56B8EBF8.4050602@mattcorallo.com>
	<236601d162b0$8da286e0$a8e794a0$@xbt.hk>
	<28C17F9B-AD69-4962-8C8F-0D983FA917ED@taoeffect.com>
	<CAAcC9yuJY3Lsd7Z0rx8TFLNT1fJLhrpxzKJREQ7FmdNNjdXJow@mail.gmail.com>
To: Chris Priest <cp368202@ohiou.edu>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3112)
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
	DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW 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: Tue, 09 Feb 2016 03:49:50 +0000
Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] On Hardforks in the Context of SegWit
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: Tue, 09 Feb 2016 02:45:50 -0000


--Apple-Mail=_D260EE8C-5454-4694-B8EB-7ABDB4DF4193
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=utf-8

Look, if we=E2=80=99re going to declare something an emergency, we =
cannot on the one hand say things like: "I strongly believe bitcoin has =
no place in the world if the fee raise much higher than a few cents per =
typically-sized transaction=E2=80=9D, and on the other declare that =
there is an emergency worth redefining what *Bitcoin is* because the =
average txn fee is on the order of 7 cents [1] and has remained =
reasonable for some time [2].

If you=E2=80=99d like to understand what a qualifying emergency looks =
like, read the links:

> =
http://bitledger.info/why-a-hard-fork-should-be-fought-and-its-not-evil-to=
-discuss/
>=20
> And here:
>=20
> =
http://bitledger.info/hard-fork-risks-and-why-95-should-be-the-standard/


In terms of scaling, we are nowhere close to an emergency.

Scaling is priority #4, maybe, and it=E2=80=99s being taken care of.

Meanwhile, we should be directing our attention one the more pressing =
and serious concerns like mining centralization & privacy.

Mining centralization is a serious issue. It is *not cool* that 4 dudes =
(and 1 government) have the power to redefine what Bitcoin is *right =
now*.

Relevant post with suggestions for fixing that:

=
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/44kwf0/the_hardfork_that_bitcoin=
_really_needs_not/czrh3na

As far as I can tell, P2Pool & GBT are not the same thing, but I=E2=80=99v=
e been told that P2Pool might use GBT in some way, even though it=E2=80=99=
s listed on the wiki as not using it. [3]

A hard fork would ideally enforce decentralized mining pools somehow so =
that transaction selection is done at the edges instead of the center.

Cheers,
Greg

[1] http://www.cointape.com/
[2] https://blockchain.info/charts/transaction-fees
[3] https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Comparison_of_mining_pools

> On Feb 8, 2016, at 4:54 PM, Chris Priest <cp368202@ohiou.edu> wrote:
>=20
>> Also, if you=E2=80=99re going to do a hard fork, you=E2=80=99d better =
make the most of it as hard forks must be a *rare* =
world-is-ending-if-we-don=E2=80=99t-do-it thing
>=20
> In my opinion, the network publishing more than 1MB worth of
> transactions while the limit is still 1MB *is* an emergency worthy of
> a hard fork.
>=20
> If that's not an emergency, then what is?
>=20
> I strongly believe bitcoin has no place in the world if the fee raise
> much higher than a few cents per typically-sized transaction.
>=20
> On 2/8/16, Tao Effect via bitcoin-dev
> <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>> Hard forks should always come in response to some major crisis that =
all
>> participants can agree is an actual crisis, as per the excellent =
rational
>> here:
>>=20
>> =
http://bitledger.info/why-a-hard-fork-should-be-fought-and-its-not-evil-to=
-discuss/
>>=20
>> And here:
>>=20
>> =
http://bitledger.info/hard-fork-risks-and-why-95-should-be-the-standard/
>>=20
>> Also, if you=E2=80=99re going to do a hard fork, you=E2=80=99d better =
make the most of it as
>> hard forks must be a *rare* world-is-ending-if-we-don=E2=80=99t-do-it =
thing
>> (otherwise Bitcoin cannot be considered decentralized in any sense of =
the
>> word).
>>=20
>> So for any sort of hard fork, be sure to address the real threats and
>> challenges that are facing Bitcoin today:
>>=20
>> 1. Mining centralization.
>> 2. Privacy.
>>=20
>> Best regards,
>> Greg Slepak
>>=20


--Apple-Mail=_D260EE8C-5454-4694-B8EB-7ABDB4DF4193
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename=signature.asc
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature;
	name=signature.asc
Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org
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=0jau
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--Apple-Mail=_D260EE8C-5454-4694-B8EB-7ABDB4DF4193--