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
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
|
Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <jgarzik@bitpay.com>) id 1YqMXY-0005h9-BR
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Thu, 07 May 2015 14:12:40 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of bitpay.com
designates 209.85.214.172 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.214.172; envelope-from=jgarzik@bitpay.com;
helo=mail-ob0-f172.google.com;
Received: from mail-ob0-f172.google.com ([209.85.214.172])
by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1YqMXX-0002Za-Gf
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Thu, 07 May 2015 14:12:40 +0000
Received: by obblk2 with SMTP id lk2so32342513obb.0
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Thu, 07 May 2015 07:12:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date
:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type;
bh=CCW9sL1BJOIWNxxFc/WHSqTgdvOdvPg/NRtlG0PgnA0=;
b=Tpwpra1JlEhJHcxMVRMzCuRQsqGbBqmc0OfSF7jpEpqadjy+N8CcOJ/x6zCDRlyfT9
fdUYJN0IroUEdxeIc1gGvXFa6tN27MCdXBkCsHhgGqGH1ps7pu6JfxB+GVJChq0Zzf30
ExXvbVAvL4yTdxsFIp0TsEC9mQyccAXGI1lBuD87RxYJ5Y7UtGtabBG7l4DmMJi6t8P1
eCKK9C1Wcp5CS9ed9j3AHv26HyIfAzznTenP1VoZbDHTyHtM1bF6/wqlSXJwAV5XzwMQ
ixg5fT0fZD7CM//1ZzybBkAZPfPxwup43JMp36795GNjzBrciz5hCOnN+vmU/iGH5fIj
hDbQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkSqtkO2kPlm31WVtB6PhsNn5g4CdVZHhuKdQpBxoDWPF/NGBSU59wu0v/ztRST/QArP2gk
X-Received: by 10.60.45.104 with SMTP id l8mr3422684oem.61.1431007482289; Thu,
07 May 2015 07:04:42 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.202.108.149 with HTTP; Thu, 7 May 2015 07:04:21 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CANEZrP3wGWHdz+ut6pvke5TJJsc1rTFt8sn2KziX35oL5LAsyg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <554A91BE.6060105@bluematt.me>
<CANEZrP3wGWHdz+ut6pvke5TJJsc1rTFt8sn2KziX35oL5LAsyg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@bitpay.com>
Date: Thu, 7 May 2015 10:04:21 -0400
Message-ID: <CAJHLa0Mr6aQcVRKtidc+qVR7-esriyp5kzAw1LMHHwOcXhhG+Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0149ce38a731e905157e64ae
X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/)
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 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
-0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from
author's domain
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: 1YqMXX-0002Za-Gf
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 14:12:40 -0000
--089e0149ce38a731e905157e64ae
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
I have a lot more written down, a WIP; here are the highlights.
- The 1MB limit is an ancient anti-spam limit, and needs to go.
- The 1MB limit is economically entrenched at this point, and cannot be
removed at a whim.
- This is a major change to the economics of a $3.2B system. This change
picks winners and losers. There is attendant moral hazard.
- The core dev team is not and should not be an FOMC.
- The bar for "major economic change to a $3.2B system" should necessarily
be high. In the more boring world of investments, this would accompanied
by Due Diligence including but not limited to projections for success,
failure scenarios, upside risks and downside risks. Projections and
fact-based simulations.
- There are significant disruption risks on the pro (change it) and con
(keep 1MB) sides of the debate.
- People are privately lobbying Gavin for this. That is the wrong way to
go. I have pushed for a more public debate, and public endorsements (or
condemnations) from major miners, merchants, payment processors,
stackholders, ... It is unfair to criticize Gavin to doing this.
--089e0149ce38a731e905157e64ae
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr"><div><div><div><div>I have a lot more written down, a WIP;=
here are the highlights.<br><br></div>- The 1MB limit is an ancient anti-s=
pam limit, and needs to go.<br><br></div><div>- The 1MB limit is economical=
ly entrenched at this point, and cannot be removed at a whim.<br></div><div=
><br></div>- This is a major change to the economics of a $3.2B system.=C2=
=A0 This change picks winners and losers.=C2=A0 There is attendant moral ha=
zard.<br><br></div><div>- The core dev team is not and should not be an FOM=
C.<br></div><div><br></div>- The bar for "major economic change to a $=
3.2B system" should necessarily be high.=C2=A0 In the more boring worl=
d of investments, this would accompanied by Due Diligence including but not=
limited to projections for success, failure scenarios, upside risks and do=
wnside risks.=C2=A0 Projections and fact-based simulations.<br></div><br><d=
iv>- There are significant disruption risks on the pro (change it) and con =
(keep 1MB) sides of the debate.<br></div><div><br></div>-
People are privately lobbying Gavin for this.=C2=A0 That is the wrong way =
to
go.=C2=A0=C2=A0 I have pushed for a more public debate, and public endorse=
ments=20
(or condemnations) from major miners, merchants, payment processors,=20
stackholders, ...=C2=A0=C2=A0 It is unfair to criticize Gavin to doing this=
.<br><br><br><br><div><br></div></div>
--089e0149ce38a731e905157e64ae--
|
