Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5B6A8267 for ; Thu, 30 Jul 2015 23:33:22 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-pd0-f178.google.com (mail-pd0-f178.google.com [209.85.192.178]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2F9C9118 for ; Thu, 30 Jul 2015 23:33:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: by pdjr16 with SMTP id r16so32518284pdj.3 for ; Thu, 30 Jul 2015 16:33:21 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :message-id:references:to; bh=CnAtZxJVgzywSe964Hv7dPXIjy2pLUe+HJtnhfPlB74=; b=i7FOTVoIJS60CJi7aYPwl9cRBB4c5ecfoFSsGIy04bWn6qbogL36Fg92VjK0VHbxPJ tIRITEibYEUdF4eKRDL6cl6JvDTkaT2Yklb68mhnyF2WSukGBNLMc9zwuNT0w2Ml+SAD 69QIsfl9Dr6+3KQX6yYfG2TrrqiJsGCyglAXM5fiUcdD0ax0QACmpKDXUOt0lmwxgEHX /8f45LdD623fsWtkbeh65UzeRgZj55VOqyWHmK+VUbCrZvusvR7Ej+GGNzaHgr8e/yhx xTsbB+o2u21ofGZCqkeQLnLZLMFpAPJAnNDeidsrG4HAQjWwGn93GidwEVvnCtgWD8+q 109g== X-Received: by 10.70.49.73 with SMTP id s9mr110877665pdn.149.1438299200939; Thu, 30 Jul 2015 16:33:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.107] (cpe-76-167-237-202.san.res.rr.com. [76.167.237.202]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id bd5sm4080043pdb.41.2015.07.30.16.33.18 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 30 Jul 2015 16:33:19 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2098\)) Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_2D22D003-1723-4421-8B70-7B66613502FF"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512 X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.5 From: Eric Lombrozo In-Reply-To: Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 16:33:16 -0700 Message-Id: <25FD9AAD-99F5-4322-AF34-243F75AE82C4@gmail.com> References: <1B7F00D3-41AE-44BF-818D-EC4EF279DC11@gmail.com> <37D282C2-EF9C-4B8B-91E8-7D613B381824@phauna.org> <55B94FAD.7040205@mail.bihthai.net> <74767203-7F7A-4848-9923-DE1DE60A28B4@gmail.com> To: Gavin X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2098) X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,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 Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Why Satoshi's temporary anti-spam measure isn't temporary X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 23:33:22 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_2D22D003-1723-4421-8B70-7B66613502FF Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_8B9CA1DA-B755-4FFF-B1A6-C8C6F5AA1020" --Apple-Mail=_8B9CA1DA-B755-4FFF-B1A6-C8C6F5AA1020 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > On Jul 30, 2015, at 5:29 AM, Gavin wrote: >=20 > it is hard to have a rational conversation about that when even simple = questions like 'what is s reasonable cost to run a full node' are met = with silence. Some of the risks are pretty hard to quantify. But I think this misses = the bigger point - it very well *might* be possible to safely raise this = limit or even get rid of it by first fixing some serious issues with the = protocol. But over six years into the project and these issues continue = to be all-but-ignored by most of the community (including at least a few = core developers). I don=E2=80=99t think it=E2=80=99s really a matter of = whether we agree on whether it=E2=80=99s good to raise the block size = limit, Gavin. I think it=E2=80=99s a matter of a difference in = priorities. - Eric --Apple-Mail=_8B9CA1DA-B755-4FFF-B1A6-C8C6F5AA1020 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
On Jul 30, 2015, at 5:29 AM, Gavin <gavinandresen@gmail.com> wrote:

it is hard to have a rational conversation about = that when even simple questions like 'what is s reasonable cost to run a = full node' are met with silence.

Some of the risks are pretty hard to = quantify. But I think this misses the bigger point - it very well = *might* be possible to safely raise this limit or even get rid of it by = first fixing some serious issues with the protocol. But over six years = into the project and these issues continue to be all-but-ignored by most = of the community (including at least a few core developers). I don=E2=80=99= t think it=E2=80=99s really a matter of whether we agree on whether = it=E2=80=99s good to raise the block size limit, Gavin. I think it=E2=80=99= s a matter of a difference in priorities.

- Eric
= --Apple-Mail=_8B9CA1DA-B755-4FFF-B1A6-C8C6F5AA1020-- --Apple-Mail=_2D22D003-1723-4421-8B70-7B66613502FF 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 iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJVurQ8AAoJEJNAI64YFENUY6wQALJhm8GrcmFPatCMVaOUBsZ/ 5luQiNBNXnlwQ01PbZ9elZEYRh/YwcV9YeLNwcxnqsVfVaxpvklVHa9vTy9q6bwn 3HYOf6AcxYK5Of/MkGpxyH+WC3cVbaWVcbJjzZLZSK+5iebMy1RxAgAUK40y59dm EFxmx4FziDQoPiGyukWi+FvcSAfrTKdrGGG+n3sisa51ZqHwNHwWlHquCOVKGqkK Nq6HxEhgfTp0vtCxNBEB+kTuD38br9xui6SWx+Q7udvnHpgG9DIws0w0MY8TiL6z 8KBv7dIicQd5YhdW5aFke1nTjia/1aSj/qQr59od7Vd+yJB9uc57puZqldjiJMLL +AONpNwwWFFgNgZ8Uz7uN0nZV0FtoXxv8RAYAP4b19jXwLDmesTf6EDve2XLfqUW lbOaeFiLynFlBkikrKdTCD0qxwDb2xEjIjxe1HS9XL2Jn/7mqMrYKFqd8lAQlUxL eaVI/Gym5nJ1kPGS9De7RA3zUEYsLZDXwhW5ZRWleAVD+zx520cCdlRjrQjUmqKC wrIxHpUXVu1xE10mXVSzZ+/DUci2D/+dBw3/r9b4zgK1nDbKyQUdbodbm2tZYUx0 BBo1oyIZdzXTaUd856AdgvYkEUbIVLWZXXrOGLtFUUw+qL+PApU3mUXX+kPvo7gk q5xk3Zyegt5Gh8jh6bo/ =RTv2 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_2D22D003-1723-4421-8B70-7B66613502FF--