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
129
|
Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>) id 1Yy25O-0005Hm-BW
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Thu, 28 May 2015 17:59:18 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.214.180 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.214.180; envelope-from=pieter.wuille@gmail.com;
helo=mail-ob0-f180.google.com;
Received: from mail-ob0-f180.google.com ([209.85.214.180])
by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1Yy25N-0002Kz-Is
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Thu, 28 May 2015 17:59:18 +0000
Received: by obbnx5 with SMTP id nx5so38921127obb.0
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Thu, 28 May 2015 10:59:12 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.60.82.97 with SMTP id h1mr3568789oey.71.1432835952154; Thu,
28 May 2015 10:59:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.60.94.36 with HTTP; Thu, 28 May 2015 10:59:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.60.94.36 with HTTP; Thu, 28 May 2015 10:59:11 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <COL131-DS24FC87C7C6622E23F5EF58CDCA0@phx.gbl>
References: <16096345.A1MpJQQkRW@crushinator>
<CABsx9T3-zxCAagAS0megd06xvG5n-3tUL9NUK9TT3vt7XNL9Tg@mail.gmail.com>
<CANEZrP3VCaFsW4+gPm2kCJ9z7oVUZYVaeNf=_cJWEWwh4ZxiPQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CABsx9T21zjHyO-nh1aSBM3z4Bg015O0rOfYq7=Sy4mf=QxUVQA@mail.gmail.com>
<COL131-DS24FC87C7C6622E23F5EF58CDCA0@phx.gbl>
Date: Thu, 28 May 2015 10:59:11 -0700
Message-ID: <CAPg+sBhuHrMHZym8xQ2-dMknR4zdM=ZULcnZ-fcGnKLserDd-A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>
To: Raystonn <raystonn@hotmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b6767c8f320ca0517281da7
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 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
(pieter.wuille[at]gmail.com)
-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: 1Yy25N-0002Kz-Is
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proposed alternatives to the 20MB
stepfunction
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, 28 May 2015 17:59:18 -0000
--047d7b6767c8f320ca0517281da7
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
On May 28, 2015 10:42 AM, "Raystonn ." <raystonn@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> I agree that developers should avoid imposing economic policy. It is
dangerous for Bitcoin and the core developers themselves to become such a
central point of attack for those wishing to disrupt Bitcoin.
I could not agree more that developers should not be in charge of the
network rules.
Which is why - in my opinion - hard forks cannot be controversial things. A
controversial change to the software, forced to be adopted by the public
because the only alternative is a permanent chain fork, is a use of power
that developers (or anyone) should not have, and an incredibly dangerous
precedent for other changes that only a subset of participants would want.
The block size is also not just an economic policy. It is the compromise
the _network_ chooses to make between utility and various forms of
centralization pressure, and we should treat it as a compromise, and not as
some limit that is inferior to scaling demands.
I personally think the block size should increase, by the way, but only if
we can do it under a policy of doing it after technological growth has been
shown to be sufficient to support it without increased risk.
--
Pieter
--047d7b6767c8f320ca0517281da7
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<p dir=3D"ltr"><br>
On May 28, 2015 10:42 AM, "Raystonn ." <<a href=3D"mailto:rays=
tonn@hotmail.com">raystonn@hotmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> I agree that developers should avoid imposing economic policy.=C2=A0 I=
t is dangerous for Bitcoin and the core developers themselves to become suc=
h a central point of attack for those wishing to disrupt Bitcoin.=C2=A0</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">I could not agree more that developers should not be in char=
ge of the network rules.</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">Which is why - in my opinion - hard forks cannot be controve=
rsial things. A controversial change to the software, forced to be adopted =
by the public because the only alternative is a permanent chain fork, is a =
use of power that developers (or anyone) should not have, and an incredibly=
dangerous precedent for other changes that only a subset of participants w=
ould want.</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">The block size is also not just an economic policy. It is th=
e compromise the _network_ chooses to make between utility and various form=
s of centralization pressure, and we should treat it as a compromise, and n=
ot as some limit that is inferior to scaling demands.</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">I personally think the block size should increase, by the wa=
y, but only if we can do it under a policy of doing it after technological =
growth has been shown to be sufficient to support it without increased risk=
.</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">-- <br>
Pieter<br>
</p>
--047d7b6767c8f320ca0517281da7--
|
