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
|
Return-Path: <santino.napolitano@yandex.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0819FE37
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sat, 19 Dec 2015 18:42:33 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: delayed 00:05:20 by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from forward15p.cmail.yandex.net (forward15p.cmail.yandex.net
[87.250.241.141])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D3E65162
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sat, 19 Dec 2015 18:42:31 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from web28g.yandex.ru (web28g.yandex.ru [95.108.253.237])
by forward15p.cmail.yandex.net (Yandex) with ESMTP id 6EEB1210A9;
Sat, 19 Dec 2015 21:37:07 +0300 (MSK)
Received: from 127.0.0.1 (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by web28g.yandex.ru (Yandex) with ESMTP id B0B1D7A0F10;
Sat, 19 Dec 2015 21:37:06 +0300 (MSK)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yandex.com; s=mail;
t=1450550227; bh=oU7qhXEpKqgHc3/s5Tdi7BTXJAUZKBDaq9Ep0Z+ibKk=;
h=From:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:Date;
b=EprWofO15DJDbkSYek+E5V+3JEwHo7MGUo67eEShfX0n2SHfr5BIIZGvVO0oos0wY
B30P0LeGl1pmHm1PIPwqrkevVpKgOUfAx8vVqaNvVlVWAv2NQgW1ZOlC4A5oyToKUZ
/cEq7vecq0wZw+sHbh7s3JBe17lHNh8ja/yCd13k=
Received: by web28g.yandex.ru with HTTP;
Sat, 19 Dec 2015 21:37:06 +0300
From: Santino Napolitano <santino.napolitano@yandex.com>
Envelope-From: santino-napolitano@yandex.com
To: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>,
jl2012 <jl2012@xbt.hk>
In-Reply-To: <20151219174309.GB30640@muck>
References: <b19eb676c18ba451605cb02159541dd9@xbt.hk>
<20151219174309.GB30640@muck>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <1709761450550226@web28g.yandex.ru>
X-Mailer: Yamail [ http://yandex.ru ] 5.0
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 2015 21:37:06 +0300
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM,
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
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sat, 19 Dec 2015 19:05:12 +0000
Cc: "bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org"
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Segregated witness softfork with moderate
adoption has very small block size effect
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, 19 Dec 2015 18:42:33 -0000
I disagree. I think all client-side adoption of SW reliably tells you is that those implementers saw value in it greater than the cost of implementation. It's possible what they valued was the malleability fix and didn't see the limited potential circumvention of MAX_BLOCK_SIZE material to their decision.
They could just as easily attach an OP_RETURN output to all of their transactions which pushes "big blocks please" which would more directly indicate their preference for larger blocks. You could also let hand-signed letters from the heads of businesses explicitly stating their desire speak for their intentions vs. any of this nonsense. Or the media interviews, forum comments, tweets, etc...
19.12.2015, 20:43, "Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev" <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>:
> On Sat, Dec 19, 2015 at 11:49:25AM -0500, jl2012 via bitcoin-dev wrote:
>> šI have done some calculation for the effect of a SW softfork on the
>> šactual total block size.
>
> Note how the fact that segwit needs client-side adoption to enable an
> actual blocksize increase can be a good thing: it's a clear sign that
> the ecosystem as a whole has opted-into a blocksize increase.
>
> Not as good as a direct proof-of-stake vote, and somewhat coercive as a
> vote as you pay lower fees, but it's an interesting side-effect.
>
> --
> 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
> 00000000000000000188b6321da7feae60d74c7b0becbdab3b1a0bd57f10947d
> ,
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
|
