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 ) id 1Z4LYK-0006ub-Pd for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 15 Jun 2015 03:59:16 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.192.172 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.192.172; envelope-from=elombrozo@gmail.com; helo=mail-pd0-f172.google.com; Received: from mail-pd0-f172.google.com ([209.85.192.172]) by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1Z4LYJ-0006h3-Oa for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 15 Jun 2015 03:59:16 +0000 Received: by pdjn11 with SMTP id n11so63332659pdj.0 for ; Sun, 14 Jun 2015 20:59:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.70.94.167 with SMTP id dd7mr45033021pdb.115.1434340750115; Sun, 14 Jun 2015 20:59:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.102] (cpe-76-167-237-202.san.res.rr.com. [76.167.237.202]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id v9sm10512878pdr.96.2015.06.14.20.59.07 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sun, 14 Jun 2015 20:59:08 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2098\)) Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_40E200EC-6AF7-450D-A20C-F2BAA7744689"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512 X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.5b6 From: Eric Lombrozo In-Reply-To: Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2015 20:59:05 -0700 Message-Id: References: <20150612181153.GB19199@muck> <3BB36FC7-9212-42A1-A756-A66929C15D4F@gmail.com> <04527D50-0118-4E74-8226-3E29B29CC7D8@gmail.com> To: Jeff Garzik X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2098) X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-) 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 (elombrozo[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 -0.4 AWL AWL: Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address X-Headers-End: 1Z4LYJ-0006h3-Oa Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] User vote in blocksize through fees X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2015 03:59:16 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_40E200EC-6AF7-450D-A20C-F2BAA7744689 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_94BA69B6-BF2E-495F-A210-2E58C332985E" --Apple-Mail=_94BA69B6-BF2E-495F-A210-2E58C332985E Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 1:08 AM, Eric Lombrozo > wrote: > 2) BIP100 has direct economic consequences=E2=80=A6and particularly = for miners. It lends itself to much greater corruptibility. >=20 >=20 > What is the alternative? Have a Chief Scientist or Technical Advisory = Board choose what is a proper fee, what is a proper level of = decentralization, a proper growth factor? > On Jun 13, 2015, at 10:36 PM, Jeff Garzik wrote: >=20 > The choice is very real and on-point. What should the block size = limit be? Why? >=20 > There is a large consensus that it needs increasing. To what? By = what factor? To be clear, Jeff, I am 100% in agreement with you that a mechanism like = what you=E2=80=99re proposing is a million times better than having high = priests that ram hard forks without proper consensus. And perhaps given = the present circumstances it seems like the only alternative. However, = in my mind this block size limit controversy is actually a fairly = superficial aspect - a mere symptom, a manifestation of the real = problem... What I find somewhat irksome is that we=E2=80=99ve had six years to = figure out a mechanism to enable hard forks (which we knew from the = start would be inevitable) - and more to the point, we=E2=80=99ve known = about this block size issue from the start as well=E2=80=A6and only = suddenly it becomes an issue of major urgency that we must bump up this = parameter 20x=E2=80=A6 - Eric Lombrozo --Apple-Mail=_94BA69B6-BF2E-495F-A210-2E58C332985E Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at = 1:08 AM, Eric Lombrozo <elombrozo@gmail.com> wrote:
2) BIP100 has = direct economic consequences=E2=80=A6and particularly for miners. It = lends itself to much greater corruptibility.


What is the alternative?  Have a Chief Scientist or = Technical Advisory Board choose what is a proper fee, what is a proper = level of decentralization, a proper growth = factor?


On Jun 13, 2015, at 10:36 PM, Jeff Garzik = <jgarzik@bitpay.com> wrote:

The choice is very real and on-point.  What = should the block size limit be?  Why?

There is a large = consensus that it needs increasing.  To what?  By what = factor?

To = be clear, Jeff, I am 100% in agreement with you that a mechanism like = what you=E2=80=99re proposing is a million times better than having high = priests that ram hard forks without proper consensus. And perhaps given = the present circumstances it seems like the only alternative. However, = in my mind this block size limit controversy is actually a fairly = superficial aspect - a mere symptom, a manifestation of the real = problem...

What = I find somewhat irksome is that we=E2=80=99ve had six years to figure = out a mechanism to enable hard forks (which we knew from the start would = be inevitable) - and more to the point, we=E2=80=99ve known about this = block size issue from the start as well=E2=80=A6and only suddenly it = becomes an issue of major urgency that we must bump up this parameter = 20x=E2=80=A6

- = Eric Lombrozo
= --Apple-Mail=_94BA69B6-BF2E-495F-A210-2E58C332985E-- --Apple-Mail=_40E200EC-6AF7-450D-A20C-F2BAA7744689 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJVfk2JAAoJEJNAI64YFENUWggP/2tWZpQaRm4eD4hGyO2Jh0ov +QwHMzg6gRNAP8dtTjORltxPtRgk7mR0CCdxMFFkIeEV2lbl/XW3geT+1Iiy5nvC CRLGJmQhIfimOEmTOeaV0brOZxRJxoUXg9s+/9MmDZjUrPByyGj/dhaUcS9rM3gi bc+o6llDD0Noz9Jj8iHUTXzm70oMsBXvP+ZRMRNjQsT2KHmB7dpllmYaF4tjLXjY aNZh61Gx/WwtkIHMYsay/50MZlNhe8SSvteTppZb/7/y1Twc1H5SN5cuXtjE7xzh 818CeORyESjxq23vxr5eAcUrWCajgGedC50HaBPouO2S49qIMmN4s3Wf244C/up9 S8c9LSVtEdWqOZl9WA9aKnrby61eovtuAvtDfGu9U/UqSjxRg1udl4vRzHwBmncw eVLLbC88pHY8xUo1AJ3Ln5rKtRZt+Pk/uqw8x77w68oRj9v/l8FmrrLcmlco+9qR 0OayHvoMElBpLlhHdOd6e1kkqzVvwpBCWfXY4sfVfPBYuekoL2wJKfXx66cE4xuv /0U05hBzEFZ7q2Ja5WKxxZclCU0yE89OWIrerkfhL8KrtNmWdNzMJujxkfSdpP1x kb87My4/HYRQAKZ/dK4wQappI1LjoTln84JpXzaF9qVOciyJR00TXlAKP/QTYoGW eVO3C6F7E9ZbO51vGJpj =exMC -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_40E200EC-6AF7-450D-A20C-F2BAA7744689--