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
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
|
Return-Path: <kanzure@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7B8D011E7
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 27 Dec 2015 00:13:42 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-io0-f175.google.com (mail-io0-f175.google.com
[209.85.223.175])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 838F0CC
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 27 Dec 2015 00:13:41 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-io0-f175.google.com with SMTP id 186so284270262iow.0
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sat, 26 Dec 2015 16:13:41 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
:cc:content-type;
bh=i5PSYZ+aqxlBwq3+oslFgmPQar2j/8b4wjCk3KYeKJk=;
b=T1kN73tsUHY47Id5awR0RTIF9rzwjCTtJD2y/7zMm7qwDLhHi84J4vyeeHCJIC+Fu7
P9wOT0YoR9ClfViaUxBUJMXKc8X2Gp9fvFqOvhWFL2lGMU4b+nJrIVl18jHO1C99VRvE
DOAvT3tW9KhBtivU8jng2dWgSxFdP+eCqGkcKTAu2OmG4HLvzOZttmzpSvcbxZ3/rK1N
qexU9805keHuxMwBO8eUwU8Dv7YSuCzR2tUAQi1DgyTboE7p+3H7y/xRjSz9E2LJlGAb
yItuT6j/Rd3SV6OuYMXIHGOFGahXlhkj0eaQlY714FtqXrxNAtgqEnJe6/zUKkK9doN4
+/7g==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.107.62.136 with SMTP id l130mr32543934ioa.28.1451175221072;
Sat, 26 Dec 2015 16:13:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.36.66.132 with HTTP; Sat, 26 Dec 2015 16:13:40 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <567F1F7A.6070700@openbitcoinprivacyproject.org>
References: <CADm_WcasDuBsop55ZWcTb2FvccaoREg8K032rUjgQUQhQ3g=XA@mail.gmail.com>
<CAPg+sBi=Mw7UnxG1-0-0ZTRqxrS5+28VmowyYrGP2MAvYiu_pA@mail.gmail.com>
<CADm_WcbrMyk-=OnQ-3UvnF_8brhn+X2NqRPbo5xUXsbcZpc0=Q@mail.gmail.com>
<CAPg+sBjbATqf8DXGF7obw9a=371zQ_S0EgTapnUmukAVenTneQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CA+c4Zozac8=aMrAJ1N_6SR9eBD+w0e70cEnk9CG_2oZ72AS-8g@mail.gmail.com>
<CAPg+sBhsKD8jd9Y9+ngXY5tKUheO3d4P1b47eYL=Uzpat+KJ2w@mail.gmail.com>
<751DFAA9-9013-4C54-BC1E-5F7ECB7469CC@gmail.com>
<CAPg+sBiT5=ss9e=iac6J-A=85okF0zxMeV7H4z9-Qfx3CAWHXA@mail.gmail.com>
<246AA3BE-570D-4B88-A63D-AC76CB2B0CB8@toom.im>
<CAPg+sBhxnxnQQ-SpWuJ-+_uxRwXkgcU07jkYdZ8BcBwVDyW-vg@mail.gmail.com>
<567F1F7A.6070700@openbitcoinprivacyproject.org>
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 2015 18:13:40 -0600
Message-ID: <CABaSBazeNk5_GaWiQerYxgB0VJko9AX+Yq1LaUJVpZTSinGt9A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Bryan Bishop <kanzure@gmail.com>
To: Justus Ranvier <justus@openbitcoinprivacyproject.org>,
Bryan Bishop <kanzure@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c0883e08f1a400527d60fe0
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,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
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Block size: It's economics & user preparation &
moral hazard
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: Sun, 27 Dec 2015 00:13:42 -0000
--94eb2c0883e08f1a400527d60fe0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
On Sat, Dec 26, 2015 at 5:15 PM, Justus Ranvier via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> On 12/26/2015 05:01 PM, Pieter Wuille via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> > I think the shortest reasonable timeframe for an uncontroversial
> > hardfork is somewhere in the range between 6 and 12 months.
>
> This argument would hold more weight if it didn't looks like a stalling
> tactic in context.
>
I think you'll find that there hasn't been stalling regarding an
uncontroversial hard-fork deployment. You might be confusing an
uncontroversial hard-fork decision instead with how developers have brought
up many issues about various (hard-forking) block size proposals.... I
suspect this is what you're intending to mention instead, given your
mention of "capacity emergencies" and also the subject line.
> 6 months ago, there was a concerted effort to being the process then,
> for exactly this reason.
>
The uncontroversial hard-fork proposals from 6 months ago were mostly along
the lines of jtimon's proposals, which were not about capacity. (Although,
I should say "almost entirely uncontroversial"-- obviously has been some
minor (and in my opinion, entirely solvable) disagreement regarding
prioritization of deploying a jtimon's uncontroversial hard-fork idea I
guess, seeing as how it has not yet happened.)
> After 6 months of denial, stonewalling, and generally unproductive
> fighting, the need for proactivity is being acknowledged with no
> reference to the delay.
>
There wasn't 6 months of "stonewalling" or "denial" about an
uncontroversial hard-fork proposal. There has been extensive discussion
regarding the controversial (flawed?) properties of other (block size)
proposals. But that's something else. Much of this has been rehashed ad
nauseum on this mailing list already... thankfully I think your future
emails could be improved and made more useful if you were to read the
mailing list archives, try to employ more careful reasoning, etc. Thanks.
> If the network ever ends up making a hasty forced upgrade to solve a
> capacity emergency the responsibility for that difficulty will not fall
> on those who did their best to prevent emergency upgrades by planning
> ahead.
>
("Capacity emergency" is too ambiguous in this context because of the
competing concerns and tradeoffs regarding transaction rate capacity
exhaustion vs. p2p low-bandwidth node bandwidth exhaustion.)
- Bryan
http://heybryan.org/
1 512 203 0507
--94eb2c0883e08f1a400527d60fe0
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">On S=
at, Dec 26, 2015 at 5:15 PM, Justus Ranvier via bitcoin-dev <span dir=3D"lt=
r"><<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_=
blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><bloc=
kquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-=
width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;paddin=
g-left:1ex"><span class=3D"">On 12/26/2015 05:01 PM, Pieter Wuille via bitc=
oin-dev wrote:<br>
> I think the shortest reasonable timeframe for an uncontroversial<br>
> hardfork is somewhere in the range between 6 and 12 months.<br>
<br>
</span>This argument would hold more weight if it didn't looks like a s=
talling<br>
tactic in context.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I think you'll f=
ind that there hasn't been stalling regarding an uncontroversial hard-f=
ork deployment. You might be confusing an uncontroversial hard-fork decisio=
n instead with how developers have brought up many issues about various (ha=
rd-forking) block size proposals.... I suspect this is what you're inte=
nding to mention instead, given your mention of "capacity emergencies&=
quot; and also the subject line.</div><div>=C2=A0<br></div><blockquote clas=
s=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;b=
order-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"=
>6 months ago, there was a concerted effort to being the process then,<br>
for exactly this reason.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>The uncontrove=
rsial hard-fork proposals from 6 months ago were mostly along the lines of =
jtimon's proposals, which were not about capacity. (Although, I should =
say "almost entirely uncontroversial"-- obviously has been some m=
inor (and in my opinion, entirely solvable) disagreement regarding prioriti=
zation of deploying a jtimon's uncontroversial hard-fork idea I guess, =
seeing as how it has not yet happened.)</div><div>=C2=A0</div><blockquote c=
lass=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1p=
x;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1=
ex">
After 6 months of denial, stonewalling, and generally unproductive<br>
fighting, the need for proactivity is being acknowledged with no<br>
reference to the delay.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>There wasn'=
t 6 months of "stonewalling" or "denial" about an uncon=
troversial hard-fork proposal. There has been extensive discussion regardin=
g the controversial (flawed?) properties of other (block size) proposals. B=
ut that's something else. Much of this has been rehashed ad nauseum=C2=
=A0on this mailing list already... =C2=A0thankfully I think your future ema=
ils could be improved and made more useful if you were to read the mailing =
list archives, try to employ more careful reasoning, etc. Thanks.</div><div=
>=C2=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px =
0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-=
style:solid;padding-left:1ex">If the network ever ends up making a hasty fo=
rced upgrade to solve a<br>
capacity emergency the responsibility for that difficulty will not fall<br>
on those who did their best to prevent emergency upgrades by planning ahead=
.<br></blockquote></div><br>("Capacity emergency" is too ambiguou=
s in this context because of the competing concerns and tradeoffs regarding=
transaction rate capacity exhaustion vs. p2p low-bandwidth node bandwidth =
exhaustion.)<br><div><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_signature">- Bryan<br><a=
href=3D"http://heybryan.org/" target=3D"_blank">http://heybryan.org/</a><b=
r>1 512 203 0507</div>
</div></div>
--94eb2c0883e08f1a400527d60fe0--
|
