MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAEgR2PHggX-8r+FZm=pod9KQv3E3=8wo-9nOB02-YDmy5NGsZQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAEgR2PHggX-8r+FZm=pod9KQv3E3=8wo-9nOB02-YDmy5NGsZQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2015 19:30:33 +0200
Message-ID: <CABm2gDr6TQwDGnYfnCWC7HUWuFXuxdwrG0Q_qJy3pgR-vLAwCw@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
To: Daniele Pinna <daniele.pinna@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c28894c4f32d051e768e30
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] On the Nature of Miner Advantages in Uncapped
 Block Size Fee Markets
Precedence: list

--001a11c28894c4f32d051e768e30
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Aug 29, 2015 9:43 AM, "Daniele Pinna via bitcoin-dev" <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> This work has vacuumed my entire life for the past two weeks leading me
to lag behind on a lot of work. I apologize for typos which I may not have
seen. I stand by for any comments the community may have and look forward
to reigniting consideration of a block size scaling proposal (BIP101)
which, due to the XT fork drama, I believe has been placed hastily and
undeservedly on the chopping block.

I don't like relying on exponential growth (that's why I don't like neither
Gavin's 101 nor Pieter's 103).

But I don't think it's too late to turn bip101 into just another proposal
for an uncontroversial hardfork (changing the 75% to 95% would be the first
step) and xt into just another software fork.

My favorite one so far is bip102 (even though I still consider "2mb now"
arbitrary and I'm worried about making mining centralization even worse
than it is now), but if it was framed as a schism hardfork like bip101 I
would also warn about the dangers of a schism hardfork for it.

>
https://www.scribd.com/doc/276849939/On-the-Nature-of-Miner-Advantages-in-Uncapped-Block-Size-Fee-Markets

I'll read it to try to understand your claims. Are you presentung this in
the scaling workshop?

--001a11c28894c4f32d051e768e30
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<p dir=3D"ltr"><br>
On Aug 29, 2015 9:43 AM, &quot;Daniele Pinna via bitcoin-dev&quot; &lt;<a h=
ref=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.linu=
xfoundation.org</a>&gt; wrote:<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; This work has vacuumed my entire life for the past two weeks leading m=
e to lag behind on a lot of work. I apologize for typos which I may not hav=
e seen. I stand by for any comments the community may have and look forward=
 to reigniting consideration of a block size scaling proposal (BIP101) whic=
h, due to the XT fork drama, I believe has been placed hastily and undeserv=
edly on the chopping block.</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">I don&#39;t like relying on exponential growth (that&#39;s w=
hy I don&#39;t like neither Gavin&#39;s 101 nor Pieter&#39;s 103). </p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">But I don&#39;t think it&#39;s too late to turn bip101 into =
just another proposal for an uncontroversial hardfork (changing the 75% to =
95% would be the first step) and xt into just another software fork.</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">My favorite one so far is bip102 (even though I still consid=
er &quot;2mb now&quot; arbitrary and I&#39;m worried about making mining ce=
ntralization even worse than it is now), but if it was framed as a schism h=
ardfork like bip101 I would also warn about the dangers of a schism hardfor=
k for it.</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">&gt; <a href=3D"https://www.scribd.com/doc/276849939/On-the-=
Nature-of-Miner-Advantages-in-Uncapped-Block-Size-Fee-Markets">https://www.=
scribd.com/doc/276849939/On-the-Nature-of-Miner-Advantages-in-Uncapped-Bloc=
k-Size-Fee-Markets</a></p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">I&#39;ll read it to try to understand your claims. Are you p=
resentung this in the scaling workshop?</p>

--001a11c28894c4f32d051e768e30--