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
|
Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <voisine@gmail.com>) id 1YshiD-0006pj-BI
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Thu, 14 May 2015 01:13:21 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.192.42 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.192.42; envelope-from=voisine@gmail.com;
helo=mail-qg0-f42.google.com;
Received: from mail-qg0-f42.google.com ([209.85.192.42])
by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1YshiC-0005d7-8o
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Thu, 14 May 2015 01:13:21 +0000
Received: by qgg76 with SMTP id 76so4515265qgg.3
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Wed, 13 May 2015 18:13:14 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.140.144.67 with SMTP id 64mr2343180qhq.40.1431565994909;
Wed, 13 May 2015 18:13:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.140.91.37 with HTTP; Wed, 13 May 2015 18:13:14 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAPg+sBjxXe0spytGsP1BUzNZhJFDYu_yacdhTy5F+O-X8EG7NQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <5550D8BE.6070207@electrum.org>
<ce3d34c92efd1cf57326e4679550944e@national.shitposting.agency>
<CABsx9T1VgxEJWxrYTs+2hXGnGrSLGJ6mVcAexjXLvK7Vu+e3EA@mail.gmail.com>
<CABm2gDoQ-atjWKB0c6AC1ZQ9fy22ceFtHHwpLmnX8DLW4DAgYA@mail.gmail.com>
<CACq0ZD4_zxhm=qWrP+Nr+fQER4s2R8i7qRjX4HsBWN46uOP2MA@mail.gmail.com>
<CAPg+sBjxXe0spytGsP1BUzNZhJFDYu_yacdhTy5F+O-X8EG7NQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 13 May 2015 18:13:14 -0700
Message-ID: <CACq0ZD7qF0oEYHfQFxLMn3OOD=ibVAfE-U5YURLrtmWVMzDpgQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Aaron Voisine <voisine@gmail.com>
To: Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1135380c9967d60516006ed5
X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
-1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for
sender-domain
0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
(voisine[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
-0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from
author's domain
0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature,
not necessarily valid
-0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
X-Headers-End: 1YshiC-0005d7-8o
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Long-term mining incentives
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 14 May 2015 01:13:21 -0000
--001a1135380c9967d60516006ed5
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Conservative is a relative term. Dropping transactions in a way that is
unpredictable to the sender sounds incredibly drastic to me. I'm suggesting
increasing the blocksize, drastic as it is, is the more conservative
choice. I would recommend that the fork take effect when some specific
large supermajority of the pervious 1000 blocks indicate they have
upgraded, as a safer alternative to a simple flag date, but I'm sure I
wouldn't have to point out that option to people here.
Aaron Voisine
co-founder and CEO
breadwallet.com
On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 5:58 PM, Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 5:48 PM, Aaron Voisine <voisine@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> We have $3billion plus of value in this system to defend. The safe,
>> conservative course is to increase the block size. Miners already have an
>> incentive to find ways to encourage higher fees and we can help them with
>> standard recommended propagation rules and hybrid priority/fee transaction
>> selection for blocks that increases confirmation delays for low fee
>> transactions.
>>
>
> You may find that the most economical solution, but I can't understand how
> you can call it conservative.
>
> Suggesting a hard fork is betting the survival of the entire ecosystem on
> the bet that everyone will agree with and upgrade to new suggested software
> before a flag date.
>
> --
> Pieter
>
>
--001a1135380c9967d60516006ed5
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr">Conservative is a relative term. Dropping transactions in =
a way that is unpredictable to the sender sounds incredibly drastic to me. =
I'm suggesting increasing the blocksize, drastic as it is, is the more =
conservative choice. I would recommend that the fork take effect when some =
specific large supermajority of the pervious 1000 blocks indicate they have=
upgraded, as a safer alternative to a simple flag date, but I'm sure I=
wouldn't have to point out that option to people here.</div><div class=
=3D"gmail_extra"><br clear=3D"all"><div><div class=3D"gmail_signature"><div=
dir=3D"ltr"><div><div dir=3D"ltr"><div><br>Aaron Voisine</div><div>co-foun=
der and CEO<br><a href=3D"http://breadwallet.com" target=3D"_blank">breadwa=
llet.com</a></div></div></div></div></div></div>
<br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 5:58 PM, Pieter Wuil=
le <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:pieter.wuille@gmail.com" target=
=3D"_blank">pieter.wuille@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote cl=
ass=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;p=
adding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><span class=3D"">On Wed, May 13, 2015 at =
5:48 PM, Aaron Voisine <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:voisine@gmai=
l.com" target=3D"_blank">voisine@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br></span>=
<div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><span class=3D""><blo=
ckquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #c=
cc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><span><span style=3D"font-size:=
13px"></span></span>We have $3billion plus of value in this system to defen=
d. The safe, conservative course is to increase the block size. Miners alre=
ady have an incentive to find ways to encourage higher fees =C2=A0and we ca=
n help them with standard recommended propagation rules and hybrid priority=
/fee transaction selection for blocks that increases confirmation delays fo=
r low fee transactions.<span></span><br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><=
/span><div>You may find that the most economical solution, but I can't =
understand how you can call it conservative.<br><br></div><div>Suggesting a=
hard fork is betting the survival of the entire ecosystem on the bet that =
everyone will agree with and upgrade to new suggested software before a fla=
g date.<span class=3D"HOEnZb"><font color=3D"#888888"><br><br>-- <br></font=
></span></div><span class=3D"HOEnZb"><font color=3D"#888888"><div>Pieter<br=
><br></div></font></span></div></div></div>
</blockquote></div><br></div>
--001a1135380c9967d60516006ed5--
|
