Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8DC86C68 for ; Wed, 8 Feb 2017 18:16:11 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-lf0-f50.google.com (mail-lf0-f50.google.com [209.85.215.50]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4AB3516C for ; Wed, 8 Feb 2017 18:16:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-lf0-f50.google.com with SMTP id n124so86888722lfd.2 for ; Wed, 08 Feb 2017 10:16:10 -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=/l90Qo/75bsd7k5D8zdHojSG+zADZd0tHAL7knts4Bk=; b=KA5uj7RwzMeM21WMEpdJbOEXrunbcuMNfikU4cB3p04JQBYHocGgExuyrPDKodNMnM VbUGZZcZe3Nglz0lKo63a6f0m70VEnIUaNVhqQdLmwZstDZ2XEln7+PN9fWbk1JVEQHw eFIddAs2YcBGAQZD2HQCof/6CJPHGF/RCzx9iiUGtHQc1ibnG2xGlg5FXDIQlf/6ct2E gy5cyR3WFhuMbz38z3qUqC5nl8ukuIvK8uyKrnMNUQ98XU1a7B/O9lemzCXrRrFw5zU7 92pn+Axqr2GnCoPFTfW7SIyz1JgUhj5aGuOdIVdwx7Itn986L9Fq1B81pBxtjyM33LRX WCfw== 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=/l90Qo/75bsd7k5D8zdHojSG+zADZd0tHAL7knts4Bk=; b=PAlrIh0nUoyPQRuG7HGeGyREiAALNzn+HgHNwJX2oIMcqGRidXQhde/UoRaDjHMqjJ EzPS2R/f+ExXoD6N9Zm8VSdsgboZMv4kqOYszRG75EaKe7OY1vRgE7N5LJZpm0KaVmb9 yOCG3lPbZQHWRr3GR0hXe3sVJKww52ztQMzAv6yB9ySw+ucNC6pncTFLzS0LFxEEvbov LVdgYD7hS41HZfRDrtOZVteAxBCpC+1cOq/CwM/GHaZKUTOl0FC+LcWVtQjtMhyQZTiX vLNIHFcc/+FS2KUk8MnZdbR5mGMTpuZ9/8oXV6nkhZyFkLvt7nWy9lTHQaakCN0pptWv AFMw== X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39n6SAdCQ8D0jiG8M+XYFPFHX4V2ey4Cb8vXNkKRLHZ//sYqARPveE6KuP8GZcx6MvaGddIleyVNUJPBwA== X-Received: by 10.46.71.132 with SMTP id u126mr8441418lja.43.1486577768592; Wed, 08 Feb 2017 10:16:08 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.25.21.92 with HTTP; Wed, 8 Feb 2017 10:16:07 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.25.21.92 with HTTP; Wed, 8 Feb 2017 10:16:07 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <201702052302.29599.luke@dashjr.org> <201702061953.40774.luke@dashjr.org> From: alp alp Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2017 12:16:07 -0600 Message-ID: To: Andrew Johnson Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113db2fad3faba054808db31 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, HTML_MESSAGE, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM 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: Fri, 10 Feb 2017 10:23:41 +0000 Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2017 18:16:11 -0000 --001a113db2fad3faba054808db31 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 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" 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" wrote: > 10% is not a tiny minority. > > On Feb 8, 2017 9:51 AM, "Andrew Johnson" > 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 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 >> >> >> --001a113db2fad3faba054808db31 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Doing nothing is the rules we all agreed to.=C2=A0 I= f those rules are to be changed,nearly everyone will need to consent.=C2=A0= The same rule applies to the cap, we all agreed to 21m, and if someone wan= ts to change that, nearly everyone would need to agree.

On Feb 8, 2017 10:28 AM, "An= drew Johnson" <andrew= .johnson83@gmail.com> wrote:
It is when you're talking about making a ch= oice and 6.3x more people prefer something else. Doing nothing is a choice = as well.

Put another way, if 1= 0% supported increasing the 21M coin cap and 63% were against, would you se= riously consider doing it?

On Feb 8, 2017 9:57 AM, &qu= ot;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&= #39;re never going to reach 100% agreement, and stifling the network litera= lly 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> wr= ote:
10% say liter= ally never.=C2=A0 That seems like a significant disenfranchisement and lack= of consensus.

On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 2:25 PM, t. khan via bitcoin-de= v <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org><= /span> 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:<= br> > >My BIP draft didn't make progress because the community oppose= s any block
> >size increase hardfork ever.
>
http://www.strawpoll.me/12228388/r

That poll shows 63% of votes want a larger than 1 MB blo= ck by this summer. How do you go from that to "the community opposes a= ny block increase ever"? It shows the exact opposite of that.
=C2= =A0
> >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 ev= idence. I've
> asked this before and you ignored it, but an answer would be helpful t= o the
> discussion.

Full node count is far below the safe minimum of 85% of econo= mic activity.

Is this causing a problem= now? If so, what?
=C2=A0
Typically reasons given for people not using full nodes themselves come dow= n
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 b= y making blocks *smaller* is like curing a disease by killing the patient. = (Incentivizing full node operation would fix that problem.)
<= br>
- 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



--001a113db2fad3faba054808db31--