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
|
Return-Path: <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1F09BD86
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sat, 29 Aug 2015 17:30:36 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-lb0-f169.google.com (mail-lb0-f169.google.com
[209.85.217.169])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 787A7106
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sat, 29 Aug 2015 17:30:35 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by lbbtg9 with SMTP id tg9so44128201lbb.1
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sat, 29 Aug 2015 10:30:34 -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:date
:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type;
bh=icq1DMu9rsQ0roME7DnGAB5U2+FqXUTvU/3ZjcgRXek=;
b=aWgBX2CxS410ha55EDwCgOuKylutsqJK/hsodW6EJpZhqw+fUwKFSAvAcZbJ271ieS
6yZwcXivl6QL4Z/sfbTCBr8npyPMQrHYiW3Pdo/AZI+LsOcagrtEk7cFR+wDXBh7Ym6q
siPoy+n6xQm/md3j2JS3/wSXobGJZZpB1GR40X4L9NU0ps5UOXTayZj3pUDAeL5EtwrC
kbupPJ/aAAJzxqHlMKlHV7xi0jwh2dKrsHzw1/6RKGY3gmcS5BAJALoApQ8SjwDJISg1
Xmz8RNwUaENe9+s92MOz33JLboWaLl8VlfP5mzkhhSucS4Nclglz3Tn3KnGwacua0hc5
eYbQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmMOL3+gPWnCuCHbeKV8YsKBLYSqjI9fGgmjrzSYtFiuaVEN1aInRznOl6fr3cgsJiSNKQd
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.152.7.68 with SMTP id h4mr7236034laa.94.1440869433792; Sat,
29 Aug 2015 10:30:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.25.15.22 with HTTP; Sat, 29 Aug 2015 10:30:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.25.15.22 with HTTP; Sat, 29 Aug 2015 10:30:33 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAEgR2PHggX-8r+FZm=pod9KQv3E3=8wo-9nOB02-YDmy5NGsZQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAEgR2PHggX-8r+FZm=pod9KQv3E3=8wo-9nOB02-YDmy5NGsZQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2015 19:30:33 +0200
Message-ID: <CABm2gDr6TQwDGnYfnCWC7HUWuFXuxdwrG0Q_qJy3pgR-vLAwCw@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
To: Daniele Pinna <daniele.pinna@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c28894c4f32d051e768e30
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,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] On the Nature of Miner Advantages in Uncapped
Block Size Fee Markets
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: Sat, 29 Aug 2015 17:30:36 -0000
--001a11c28894c4f32d051e768e30
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
On Aug 29, 2015 9:43 AM, "Daniele Pinna via bitcoin-dev" <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> This work has vacuumed my entire life for the past two weeks leading me
to lag behind on a lot of work. I apologize for typos which I may not have
seen. I stand by for any comments the community may have and look forward
to reigniting consideration of a block size scaling proposal (BIP101)
which, due to the XT fork drama, I believe has been placed hastily and
undeservedly on the chopping block.
I don't like relying on exponential growth (that's why I don't like neither
Gavin's 101 nor Pieter's 103).
But I don't think it's too late to turn bip101 into just another proposal
for an uncontroversial hardfork (changing the 75% to 95% would be the first
step) and xt into just another software fork.
My favorite one so far is bip102 (even though I still consider "2mb now"
arbitrary and I'm worried about making mining centralization even worse
than it is now), but if it was framed as a schism hardfork like bip101 I
would also warn about the dangers of a schism hardfork for it.
>
https://www.scribd.com/doc/276849939/On-the-Nature-of-Miner-Advantages-in-Uncapped-Block-Size-Fee-Markets
I'll read it to try to understand your claims. Are you presentung this in
the scaling workshop?
--001a11c28894c4f32d051e768e30
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<p dir=3D"ltr"><br>
On Aug 29, 2015 9:43 AM, "Daniele Pinna via bitcoin-dev" <<a h=
ref=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.linu=
xfoundation.org</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> This work has vacuumed my entire life for the past two weeks leading m=
e to lag behind on a lot of work. I apologize for typos which I may not hav=
e seen. I stand by for any comments the community may have and look forward=
to reigniting consideration of a block size scaling proposal (BIP101) whic=
h, due to the XT fork drama, I believe has been placed hastily and undeserv=
edly on the chopping block.</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">I don't like relying on exponential growth (that's w=
hy I don't like neither Gavin's 101 nor Pieter's 103). </p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">But I don't think it's too late to turn bip101 into =
just another proposal for an uncontroversial hardfork (changing the 75% to =
95% would be the first step) and xt into just another software fork.</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">My favorite one so far is bip102 (even though I still consid=
er "2mb now" arbitrary and I'm worried about making mining ce=
ntralization even worse than it is now), but if it was framed as a schism h=
ardfork like bip101 I would also warn about the dangers of a schism hardfor=
k for it.</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">> <a href=3D"https://www.scribd.com/doc/276849939/On-the-=
Nature-of-Miner-Advantages-in-Uncapped-Block-Size-Fee-Markets">https://www.=
scribd.com/doc/276849939/On-the-Nature-of-Miner-Advantages-in-Uncapped-Bloc=
k-Size-Fee-Markets</a></p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">I'll read it to try to understand your claims. Are you p=
resentung this in the scaling workshop?</p>
--001a11c28894c4f32d051e768e30--
|
