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
|
Return-Path: <thomas@thomaszander.se>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0135226C
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 12 Aug 2015 08:02:01 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from pmx.vmail.no (pmx.vmail.no [193.75.16.11])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35FAB16D
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 12 Aug 2015 08:02:00 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pmx.vmail.no (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by localhost (pmx.isp.as2116.net) with SMTP id D989B61F50
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 12 Aug 2015 10:01:58 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from smtp.bluecom.no (smtp.bluecom.no [193.75.75.28])
by pmx.vmail.no (pmx.isp.as2116.net) with ESMTP id 7CE015F165
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 12 Aug 2015 10:01:58 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from pluto.localnet (unknown [81.191.183.21])
(using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
by smtp.bluecom.no (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6E35A412
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 12 Aug 2015 10:01:58 +0200 (CEST)
From: Thomas Zander <thomas@thomaszander.se>
To: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 10:01:57 +0200
Message-ID: <2118360.Of6VJk6a9I@pluto>
User-Agent: KMail/4.14.1 (Linux/3.16.0-4-amd64; KDE/4.14.2; x86_64; ; )
In-Reply-To: <CABm2gDp2svO2G5bHs5AcjjN8dmP6P5nv0xriWez-pvzs2oBL5w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABsx9T16fH+56isq95m4+QWsKwP==tf75ep8ghnEcBoV4OtZJA@mail.gmail.com>
<8181630.GdAj0CPZYc@coldstorage>
<CABm2gDp2svO2G5bHs5AcjjN8dmP6P5nv0xriWez-pvzs2oBL5w@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,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
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Fees and the block-finding process
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: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 08:02:01 -0000
On Tuesday 11. August 2015 19.47.56 Jorge Tim=F3n wrote:
> On Aug 11, 2015 12:14 AM, "Thomas Zander via bitcoin-dev"
> > See my various emails in the last hour.
>=20
> I've read them. I have read gavin's blog posts as well, several times=
.
> I still don't see what else can we fear from not increasing the size =
apart
> from fees maybe rising and making some problems that need to be solve=
d
> rewardless of the size more visible=20
[]
> This discussion is frustrating for everyone. I could also say "This h=
ave
> been explained many times" and similar things, but that's not product=
ive.
> I'm not trying to be obstinate, please, answer what else is to fear o=
r
> admit that all your feas are just potential consequences of rising fe=
es.
Since you replied to me;
I have to admit I find that a little depressing.
I put forward about 10 reasons in the last 24 hours and all you remembe=
r is=20
something with fees. Which, thats the funny part, I never wrote as bei=
ng a=20
problem directly.
=20
> With the risk of sounding condescending or aggressive...Really, is no=
t that
> hard to answer questions directly and succinctly.
I would really like to avoid putting blame. I'd like to avoid the FUD=20=
accusation and calling people paranoid, even yourself, sounds rather ba=
d=20
too...
Personally I think its a bad idea to do write the way you do, which is =
that=20
some people have to prove that bad things will happen if we don't make =
a=20
certain change. It polarizes the discussion and puts people into camps.=
People=20
have to choose sides.
I've been reading the blocksize debate for months now and have been=20
wondering=20
why people here are either for or against, it makes no sense to me.
Neither camp is right, and everyone knows this!
Everyone knows that bigger blocks doesn't solve the scalability problem=
.=20
Everyone knows that you can't get substantial growth using lightning or=
higher=20
fees in, say, the next 12 months.
please reply to this email;
http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/0101=
29.html
--=20
Thomas Zander
|
