path: root/d1/42364fe7e8dc6cbaa5db5485d00b2c2bd96fd4

Return-Path: <btcdrak@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
	[172.17.192.35])
	by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4A53F905
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Fri, 10 Feb 2017 10:34:15 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-yb0-f193.google.com (mail-yb0-f193.google.com
	[209.85.213.193])
	by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 05CDB90
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Fri, 10 Feb 2017 10:34:13 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-yb0-f193.google.com with SMTP id o65so1196402ybo.3
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Fri, 10 Feb 2017 02:34:13 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025;
	h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to
	:cc; bh=Pqq0/0IJvPQQGFmKXW8x5w5yiB7WrxRUzBhMEd0n7jM=;
	b=q8Sa8nqNAjg6OMzc88NJD1Itr7WCa+ehQuaYnZCERmHfH9BEgMPSv1m0JBUzd0brRZ
	EdG99YyNCoUGGLZdZMoCUpuLuPGp6XH55FjecFZQSW8m5qLfsHLCrzTxmkh0AdAtlyvz
	dgCXfLlqpylRR6Sc+tWJrCxaRJ2ONy2Q/AAZcQAsmB4OGKuEOHOsSQhu8dQhGZyFGVMh
	ZdDhcqcrYNU3vSxLHD/Zy62X/zZ1vsEqoGFVXG+DPc6r6yOgZ4x0ySsHbX0oTzzZeS//
	cvbJnEmqjtKLJBCm4N39SUOj8DpBn9vNjnlFqueJQ9jNeAlSUiT3K5wBRyXEzu5O7DXx
	cvIg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
	d=1e100.net; s=20161025;
	h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date
	:message-id:subject:to:cc;
	bh=Pqq0/0IJvPQQGFmKXW8x5w5yiB7WrxRUzBhMEd0n7jM=;
	b=IPITdiaXi0ufRzbFlKVhHACByp7EGFPuiy6HXjHNX3dvN4+a32IM35mYZiG4tqPny6
	lzrmrC8ZOLYdmMtUDOatRv+PI82IUyGqtbBwRKGLOlkInLMLk7zfjguTbvZTW99mxQF8
	QlTWLRahUggp2EM6GgW4jM2ozj0XooqXg2LCH9O+X62heqjK60nX9YzR2IuUXlR6E5cT
	NOjPHyPn4AypRdVD4AslxB+0RDtzSzBHn8d0184J6TZUw8SZi4zn4sr4239gCU2T6uem
	othrdcFtpkfUPAw8D0z17bN/e2vx8bgAR93qql7aOXooFfYT2VykvY2R1Bw7WXO/HZFO
	4vDQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39m0o2qXR2L0T0kFw1Gm5PPVqSe2/hhPRsdGdUGKT2DaxHIu+36aZWaS5CaOFzUFJbgK7ih0Rbtd2GAPBQ==
X-Received: by 10.37.178.162 with SMTP id k34mr5815899ybj.21.1486722853178;
	Fri, 10 Feb 2017 02:34:13 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.129.52.10 with HTTP; Fri, 10 Feb 2017 02:33:52 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAMBsKS9O2VXtC+m1w_NbcP96d2Fk+6NqfP3SxHG8Ce2gL=mRBA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <ea63ed5a-4280-c063-4984-5bc8a4b2aafa@gmail.com>
	<201702052302.29599.luke@dashjr.org>
	<CAGCNRJrNRb4Eo5T8+KsKnazOCm15g89RFLtRW07k1KjN6TpTDw@mail.gmail.com>
	<201702061953.40774.luke@dashjr.org>
	<CAGCNRJo3zM2kYePPw-=JpMQWtn_M1Eg=SpShC_z-d-_Nv6KqcQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAMBsKS9OS2tA4bG-JG96XNZTiPyuq322Qu=fyJcZ1BtVj3TtxQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAy62_LcpgXss9hMTG_kwoGbuTOmfpmEc-awi5gNybq0fYErfQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAMBsKS-Zek5qHB=Yvf0=8EKZkZL8qxAK3n=Cn7Kq6GCwt774_w@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAy62_+AhknwH38fadiT2WTHZsiCZp-sPbVhDnKCHXwatCypnQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAMBsKS_JKNJFLB_ao8-dcWgWB8o5bGLbNPrPtvSmobrryZVEmQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAy62_L7G6aY0hpw-wc6Z+2DWiFUNOX003iTWbbvsZywLV+orA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAMBsKS9O2VXtC+m1w_NbcP96d2Fk+6NqfP3SxHG8Ce2gL=mRBA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Btc Drak <btcdrak@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2017 10:33:52 +0000
Message-ID: <CADJgMzsYokNbCuxAwiGi0gdcJvKFrR4A8jx4RjO6CLDwtyT=NA@mail.gmail.com>
To: alp alp <alp.bitcoin@gmail.com>, 
	Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f403045f3e368b15a205482aa3e6
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
	DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, FREEMAIL_REPLY,
	HK_RANDOM_ENVFROM, 
	HK_RANDOM_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM
	autolearn=no version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
	smtp1.linux-foundation.org
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 10 Feb 2017 10:34:51 +0000
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] A Modified Version of Luke-jr's Block Size BIP
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol 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: Fri, 10 Feb 2017 10:34:15 -0000

--f403045f3e368b15a205482aa3e6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

Agreed, this thread is venturing somewhat out of scope for the list. Please
can we redirect philosophical discussion to another forum/list such as
bitcoin-discuss, which can be found at
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-discuss

Repost of the bitcoin-dev posting guidelines are:

- Posts must concern development of bitcoin protocol.
- Posts should be technical or academic in nature.
- Generally encouraged: patches, notification of pull requests, BIP
proposals, academic paper announcements. And discussions that follow.
- Generally discouraged: shower thoughts, wild speculation, jokes, +1s,
non-technical bitcoin issues, rehashing settled topics without new data,
moderation concerns.
- Detailed patch discussion generally better on a GitHub PR.
- Meta-discussion is better on bitcoin-discuss.

On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 8:13 PM, alp alp via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> >Only the majority needs to consent, though what is considered a majority
> varies depending on the context (95%, 75%, 51%). Nowhere does it say
> "everyone needs to agree".
>
> There's a pretty huge gap between 90% and nearly 100%.  90% excluding 10%
> only 7 times results in only 48% of the original base.
>
> >If a small dissenting minority can block all forward progress then
> bitcoin is no longer interesting.
>
> Your definition of forward may be different than other users.
>
> >Is that really the bitcoin that you want to be a part of?
>
> Yes, I chose Bitcoin because it relies on a strictly held consensus
> mechanism and not one that changes on the whims of the majority.  We have
> tens of dozens of political currencies for that.
>
> >When the 1MB cap was implemented it was stated specifically that we
> could increase it when we needed it.  The white paper even talks about
> scaling to huge capacity.  Not sure where you got the idea that we all
> agreed to stay at 1MB forever, I certainly didn't.  It was never stated or
> implied that we could change the coin cap later(please cite if I'm
> mistaken).
>
> The community has not agreed that it is needed at this time.  Perhaps they
> will change their mind at some point in the future.  We have also learned a
> great deal since the publication of the initial whitepaper, such as the
> unstable state without a backlog or subsidy.  Fortunately, participation in
> this system is voluntary, and you are free to leave at any time.
>
> This seems to be venturing quite off topic, and perhaps would be better
> suited for the bitcoin-discuss list.
>
> On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 1:56 PM, Andrew Johnson <andrew.johnson83@gmail.com
> > wrote:
>
>> If a small dissenting minority can block all forward progress then
>> bitcoin is no longer interesting.  What an incredibly simple attack
>> vector...
>>
>> No need to break any cryptography, find a bug to exploit, build tens of
>> millions of dollars in mining hardware, spend lots of bitcoin on fees to
>> flood the network, or be clever or expend any valuable resources in any
>> way, shape, or form.
>>
>> Just convince(or pay, if you do want to expend some resources) a few
>> people(or make up a few online personas) to staunchly refuse to accept
>> anything at all and the entire system is stuck in 2013(when we first
>> started widely discussing a blocksize increase seriously).
>>
>> Is that really the bitcoin that you want to be a part of?
>>
>> When the 1MB cap was implemented it was stated specifically that we could
>> increase it when we needed it.  The white paper even talks about scaling to
>> huge capacity.  Not sure where you got the idea that we all agreed to stay
>> at 1MB forever, I certainly didn't.  It was never stated or implied that we
>> could change the coin cap later(please cite if I'm mistaken).
>>
>>
>> On Feb 8, 2017 12:16 PM, "alp alp" <alp.bitcoin@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Doing nothing is the rules we all agreed to.  If those rules are to be
>> changed,nearly everyone will need to consent.  The same rule applies to the
>> cap, we all agreed to 21m, and if someone wants to change that, nearly
>> everyone would need to agree.
>>
>>
>> On Feb 8, 2017 10:28 AM, "Andrew Johnson" <andrew.johnson83@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> It is when you're talking about making a choice and 6.3x more people
>> prefer something else. Doing nothing is a choice as well.
>>
>> Put another way, if 10% supported increasing the 21M coin cap and 63%
>> were against, would you seriously consider doing it?
>>
>> On Feb 8, 2017 9:57 AM, "alp alp" <alp.bitcoin@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> 10% is not a tiny minority.
>>>
>>> On Feb 8, 2017 9:51 AM, "Andrew Johnson" <andrew.johnson83@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> You're never going to reach 100% agreement, and stifling the network
>>>> literally forever to please a tiny minority is daft.
>>>>
>>>> On Feb 8, 2017 8:52 AM, "alp alp via bitcoin-dev" <
>>>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> 10% say literally never.  That seems like a significant
>>>> disenfranchisement and lack of consensus.
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 2:25 PM, t. khan via bitcoin-dev <
>>>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 2:53 PM, Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Monday, February 06, 2017 6:19:43 PM you wrote:
>>>>>> > >My BIP draft didn't make progress because the community opposes
>>>>>> any block
>>>>>> > >size increase hardfork ever.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > Luke, how do you know the community opposes that? Specifically, how
>>>>>> did you
>>>>>> > come to this conclusion?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.strawpoll.me/12228388/r
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That poll shows 63% of votes want a larger than 1 MB block by this
>>>>> summer. How do you go from that to "the community opposes any block
>>>>> increase ever"? It shows the exact opposite of that.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> > >Your version doesn't address the current block size
>>>>>> > >issues (ie, the blocks being too large).
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > Why do you think blocks are "too large"? Please cite some evidence.
>>>>>> I've
>>>>>> > asked this before and you ignored it, but an answer would be
>>>>>> helpful to the
>>>>>> > discussion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Full node count is far below the safe minimum of 85% of economic
>>>>>> activity.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Is this causing a problem now? If so, what?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Typically reasons given for people not using full nodes themselves
>>>>>> come down
>>>>>> to the high resource requirements caused by the block size.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The reason people stop running nodes is because there's no incentive
>>>>> to counteract the resource costs. Attempting to solve this by making blocks
>>>>> *smaller* is like curing a disease by killing the patient. (Incentivizing
>>>>> full node operation would fix that problem.)
>>>>>
>>>>> - t.k.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>>>>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
>>>>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>>>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
>>>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
>

--f403045f3e368b15a205482aa3e6
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">Agreed, this thread is venturing somewhat out of scope for=
 the list. Please can we redirect philosophical discussion to another forum=
/list such as bitcoin-discuss, which can be found at <a href=3D"https://lis=
ts.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-discuss">https://lists.linu=
xfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-discuss</a><br><br>Repost of the b=
itcoin-dev posting guidelines are:<br><br>- Posts must concern development =
of bitcoin protocol.=C2=A0<br>- Posts should be technical or academic in na=
ture.=C2=A0<br>- Generally encouraged: patches, notification of pull reques=
ts, BIP proposals, academic paper announcements. And discussions that follo=
w.=C2=A0<br>- Generally discouraged: shower thoughts, wild speculation, jok=
es, +1s, non-technical bitcoin issues, rehashing settled topics without new=
 data, moderation concerns.=C2=A0<br>- Detailed patch discussion generally =
better on a GitHub PR.=C2=A0<br>- Meta-discussion is better on bitcoin-disc=
uss.</div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Wed,=
 Feb 8, 2017 at 8:13 PM, alp alp via bitcoin-dev <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a h=
ref=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">bitc=
oin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote clas=
s=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;pad=
ding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><span class=3D""><div>&gt;<span style=3D"fo=
nt-size:12.8px">Only the majority needs to consent, though what is consider=
ed a majority varies depending on the context (95%, 75%, 51%). Nowhere does=
 it say &quot;everyone needs to agree&quot;.</span></div><div><br></div></s=
pan>There&#39;s a pretty huge gap between 90% and nearly 100%. =C2=A090% ex=
cluding 10% only 7 times results in only 48% of the original base.<span cla=
ss=3D""><br><div><br></div><div>&gt;<span style=3D"font-size:12.8px">If a s=
mall dissenting minority can block all forward progress then bitcoin is no =
longer interesting.=C2=A0</span></div><div><span style=3D"font-size:12.8px"=
><br></span></div></span><div><span style=3D"font-size:12.8px">Your definit=
ion of forward may be different than other users.</span></div><span class=
=3D""><div><span style=3D"font-size:12.8px"><br></span></div><div><span sty=
le=3D"font-size:12.8px">&gt;</span><span style=3D"font-size:12.8px">Is that=
 really the bitcoin that you want to be a part of?</span></div><div><span s=
tyle=3D"font-size:12.8px"><br></span></div></span><div><span style=3D"font-=
size:12.8px">Yes, I chose Bitcoin because it relies on a strictly held cons=
ensus mechanism=C2=A0and not one that changes on the whims of the majority.=
=C2=A0 We have tens of dozens of political currencies for that.</span></div=
><span class=3D""><div><span style=3D"font-size:12.8px"><br></span></div><d=
iv>&gt;<span style=3D"font-size:12.8px">When the 1MB cap was implemented it=
 was stated specifically that we could increase it when we needed it.=C2=A0=
 The white paper even talks about scaling to huge capacity.=C2=A0 Not sure =
where you got the idea that we all agreed to stay at 1MB forever, I certain=
ly didn&#39;t.=C2=A0 It was never stated or implied that we could change th=
e coin cap later(please cite if I&#39;m mistaken).</span></div><div><span s=
tyle=3D"font-size:12.8px"><br></span></div></span><div><span style=3D"font-=
size:12.8px">The community has not agreed that it is needed at this time.=
=C2=A0 Perhaps they will change their mind at some point in the future.=C2=
=A0 We have also learned a great deal since the publication of the initial =
whitepaper, such as the unstable state without a backlog or subsidy.=C2=A0 =
Fortunately, participation in this system is voluntary, and you are free to=
 leave at any time.</span></div><div><span style=3D"font-size:12.8px"><br><=
/span></div><div><span style=3D"font-size:12.8px">This seems to be venturin=
g quite off topic, and perhaps would be better suited for the bitcoin-discu=
ss list.</span></div><div class=3D"m_-5801103831632557384gmail-yj6qo m_-580=
1103831632557384gmail-ajU" style=3D"font-size:12.8px"></div></div><div clas=
s=3D"HOEnZb"><div class=3D"h5"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D=
"gmail_quote">On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 1:56 PM, Andrew Johnson <span dir=3D"l=
tr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:andrew.johnson83@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">and=
rew.johnson83@gmail.com</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail=
_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:=
1ex"><div dir=3D"auto"><div>If a small dissenting minority can block all fo=
rward progress then bitcoin is no longer interesting.=C2=A0 What an incredi=
bly simple attack vector...<div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">No=
 need to break any cryptography, find a bug to exploit, build tens of milli=
ons of dollars in mining hardware, spend lots of bitcoin on fees to flood t=
he network, or be clever or expend any valuable resources in any way, shape=
, or form.</div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">Just convince=
(or pay, if you do want to expend some resources) a few people(or make up a=
 few online personas) to staunchly refuse to accept anything at all and the=
 entire system is stuck in 2013(when we first started widely discussing a b=
locksize increase seriously).</div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"=
auto">Is that really the bitcoin that you want to be a part of?</div><div d=
ir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">When the 1MB cap was implemented it=
 was stated specifically that we could increase it when we needed it.=C2=A0=
 The white paper even talks about scaling to huge capacity.=C2=A0 Not sure =
where you got the idea that we all agreed to stay at 1MB forever, I certain=
ly didn&#39;t.=C2=A0 It was never stated or implied that we could change th=
e coin cap later(please cite if I&#39;m mistaken).</div><div><div class=3D"=
m_-5801103831632557384h5"><br><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"=
gmail_quote">On Feb 8, 2017 12:16 PM, &quot;alp alp&quot; &lt;<a href=3D"ma=
ilto:alp.bitcoin@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">alp.bitcoin@gmail.com</a>&gt;=
 wrote:<br type=3D"attribution"><blockquote class=3D"m_-5801103831632557384=
m_7065370024643319909quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc=
 solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"auto"><div>Doing nothing is the rules =
we all agreed to.=C2=A0 If those rules are to be changed,nearly everyone wi=
ll need to consent.=C2=A0 The same rule applies to the cap, we all agreed t=
o 21m, and if someone wants to change that, nearly everyone would need to a=
gree.<div class=3D"m_-5801103831632557384m_7065370024643319909elided-text">=
<br><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Feb 8, 201=
7 10:28 AM, &quot;Andrew Johnson&quot; &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:andrew.johnson=
83@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">andrew.johnson83@gmail.com</a>&gt; wrote:<b=
r type=3D"attribution"><blockquote class=3D"m_-5801103831632557384m_7065370=
024643319909m_8271390937067804642quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-l=
eft:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"auto">It is when you&#39;r=
e talking about making a choice and 6.3x more people prefer something else.=
 Doing nothing is a choice as well.<div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"=
auto">Put another way, if 10% supported increasing the 21M coin cap and 63%=
 were against, would you seriously consider doing it?</div></div><div class=
=3D"m_-5801103831632557384m_7065370024643319909m_8271390937067804642elided-=
text"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Feb 8, 2=
017 9:57 AM, &quot;alp alp&quot; &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:alp.bitcoin@gmail.co=
m" target=3D"_blank">alp.bitcoin@gmail.com</a>&gt; wrote:<br type=3D"attrib=
ution"><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-=
left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"auto">10% is not a tiny m=
inority.</div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On =
Feb 8, 2017 9:51 AM, &quot;Andrew Johnson&quot; &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:andre=
w.johnson83@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">andrew.johnson83@gmail.com</a>&gt;=
 wrote:<br type=3D"attribution"><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"=
margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"=
auto"><div>You&#39;re never going to reach 100% agreement, and stifling the=
 network literally forever to please a tiny minority is daft.<br><div class=
=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Feb 8, 2017 8:52 AM, &qu=
ot;alp alp via bitcoin-dev&quot; &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.li=
nuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfounda<wbr>tion=
.org</a>&gt; wrote:<br type=3D"attribution"><blockquote class=3D"m_-5801103=
831632557384m_7065370024643319909m_8271390937067804642m_-453396488055665304=
2m_-8682514029143378247m_-1566305387424443597quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .=
8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr">10% say l=
iterally never.=C2=A0 That seems like a significant disenfranchisement and =
lack of consensus.</div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_=
quote"><div class=3D"m_-5801103831632557384m_7065370024643319909m_827139093=
7067804642m_-4533964880556653042m_-8682514029143378247m_-156630538742444359=
7elided-text">On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 2:25 PM, t. khan via bitcoin-dev <span=
 dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" t=
arget=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfounda<wbr>tion.org</a>&gt;</span> =
wrote:<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8e=
x;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class=3D"m_-58011038316=
32557384m_7065370024643319909m_8271390937067804642m_-4533964880556653042m_-=
8682514029143378247m_-1566305387424443597elided-text"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div=
>On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 2:53 PM, Luke Dashjr <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=
=3D"mailto:luke@dashjr.org" target=3D"_blank">luke@dashjr.org</a>&gt;</span=
> wrote:<br></div><div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote=
"><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;borde=
r-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204)=
;padding-left:1ex"><span><span class=3D"m_-5801103831632557384m_70653700246=
43319909m_8271390937067804642m_-4533964880556653042m_-8682514029143378247m_=
-1566305387424443597m_-8603678674590328520m_5903971323563278916gmail-">On M=
onday, February 06, 2017 6:19:43 PM you wrote:<br>
&gt; &gt;My BIP draft didn&#39;t make progress because the community oppose=
s any block<br>
&gt; &gt;size increase hardfork ever.<br>
&gt;<br>
</span></span><span><span class=3D"m_-5801103831632557384m_7065370024643319=
909m_8271390937067804642m_-4533964880556653042m_-8682514029143378247m_-1566=
305387424443597m_-8603678674590328520m_5903971323563278916gmail-">&gt; Luke=
, how do you know the community opposes that? Specifically, how did you<br>
&gt; come to this conclusion?<br>
<br>
</span></span><a href=3D"http://www.strawpoll.me/12228388/r" rel=3D"norefer=
rer" target=3D"_blank">http://www.strawpoll.me/122283<wbr>88/r</a></blockqu=
ote><div><br></div>That poll shows 63% of votes want a larger than 1 MB blo=
ck by this summer. How do you go from that to &quot;the community opposes a=
ny block increase ever&quot;? It shows the exact opposite of that.<div>=C2=
=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8e=
x;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,2=
04,204);padding-left:1ex"><span><span class=3D"m_-5801103831632557384m_7065=
370024643319909m_8271390937067804642m_-4533964880556653042m_-86825140291433=
78247m_-1566305387424443597m_-8603678674590328520m_5903971323563278916gmail=
-">
&gt; &gt;Your version doesn&#39;t address the current block size<br>
&gt; &gt;issues (ie, the blocks being too large).<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; Why do you think blocks are &quot;too large&quot;? Please cite some ev=
idence. I&#39;ve<br>
&gt; asked this before and you ignored it, but an answer would be helpful t=
o the<br>
&gt; discussion.<br>
<br>
</span></span>Full node count is far below the safe minimum of 85% of econo=
mic activity.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Is this causing a problem=
 now? If so, what?</div><div>=C2=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" =
style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:s=
olid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
Typically reasons given for people not using full nodes themselves come dow=
n<br>
to the high resource requirements caused by the block size.</blockquote><di=
v><br></div><div>The reason people stop running nodes is because there&#39;=
s no incentive to counteract the resource costs. Attempting to solve this b=
y making blocks *smaller* is like curing a disease by killing the patient. =
(Incentivizing full node operation would fix that problem.)<br></div><div><=
br></div><div>- t.k.</div></div><br></div></div></div>
<br></div><div class=3D"m_-5801103831632557384m_7065370024643319909m_827139=
0937067804642m_-4533964880556653042m_-8682514029143378247m_-156630538742444=
3597quoted-text">______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">=
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundat<wbr>ion.org</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" =
rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.<wbr>org=
/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-d<wbr>ev</a><br>
<br></div></blockquote></div><br></div>
<br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">=
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundat<wbr>ion.org</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" =
rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.<wbr>org=
/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-d<wbr>ev</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div></div></div>
</blockquote></div></div>
</blockquote></div></div>
</div></blockquote></div><br></div></div></div></div>
</blockquote></div><br></div></div></div></div></div>
</blockquote></div><br></div>
</div></div><br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.=
<wbr>linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" =
rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.<wbr>org=
/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-<wbr>dev</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>

--f403045f3e368b15a205482aa3e6--