Return-Path: <alp.bitcoin@gmail.com> Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2F4EAB4A for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; Wed, 8 Feb 2017 14:44:55 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-lf0-f44.google.com (mail-lf0-f44.google.com [209.85.215.44]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 64A72AC for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; Wed, 8 Feb 2017 14:44:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-lf0-f44.google.com with SMTP id n124so83164050lfd.2 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; Wed, 08 Feb 2017 06:44:54 -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; bh=L6Ir5eb/m717J4ljXAaplCnYr7VrMR0DL6GwQc4lY+s=; b=d98fNdW2mtGJJmqM4kxi6GjZ5QHZ12+05uJSjVUGsqrk1uxP3XyyEpyx3TNPiVLbfr HrmOSRUjpBs7SG45BZY9cMUHGH30ElKkocNGjTIktVKTX3wZJEqDhwjl5nXwBOkoOqfo hQZ+ibulrsrqFWDrpWKFQIhdJTb4ACh04ytw+PSaZyisBPHs6aLdRbHz1J6YXTAXuk/E 1zwwngJR75usBQTrgeo8yKb9+3Xf+Bmxtl3S0jRHN6ggrMNAfX4vBKjU5YhtX6RFp0I/ gy8Th69K3epWJ48dkCslSZ4ZreCmJN9MHGwpqjOvfU5wDFKYhCvZi4ZJO/3mFCR9vw7z mMVQ== 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; bh=L6Ir5eb/m717J4ljXAaplCnYr7VrMR0DL6GwQc4lY+s=; b=cPheEt/ixxh3WElfcYkmK2I1+0w5nol+xQKd65fyXy0bGOH4AqTLbjXYakhDHNNRlR 08fvkElO177jcniFgqkJWfE/3d2Ane0sfmbldWTv65m2QPqR/F5PwiKrzJ6cmYjFRegY 3KQDwJ+OI2L6va7LY8bk2WQKwVYoES87Bc/lEWKOm6RaZETZvSsSArze2R5Ke5ske9/7 Vr5+H8J/Qr8zzZ6zpSILi42HU05HmRz1k8NliS7rlEZZJ7InuUBHhCts41M1tMX3gKao Q0Pjyth2u1tkra6k1gLPQp8mlRFACvZTgqLND6R/C24K6biaIpDv436Kj92JF3vQZvtr ftRw== X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXLY8zQ5FoG/qiPL+LM9pwueNfI4CTUlLRl7ZVq55jNNRmrk82gEqm0BWXIes0MoMO7/JTpUUYeV1cMlOA== X-Received: by 10.25.196.136 with SMTP id u130mr6796313lff.37.1486565092815; Wed, 08 Feb 2017 06:44:52 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.25.21.92 with HTTP; Wed, 8 Feb 2017 06:44:52 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <CAGCNRJo3zM2kYePPw-=JpMQWtn_M1Eg=SpShC_z-d-_Nv6KqcQ@mail.gmail.com> References: <ea63ed5a-4280-c063-4984-5bc8a4b2aafa@gmail.com> <201702052302.29599.luke@dashjr.org> <CAGCNRJrNRb4Eo5T8+KsKnazOCm15g89RFLtRW07k1KjN6TpTDw@mail.gmail.com> <201702061953.40774.luke@dashjr.org> <CAGCNRJo3zM2kYePPw-=JpMQWtn_M1Eg=SpShC_z-d-_Nv6KqcQ@mail.gmail.com> From: alp alp <alp.bitcoin@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2017 08:44:52 -0600 Message-ID: <CAMBsKS9OS2tA4bG-JG96XNZTiPyuq322Qu=fyJcZ1BtVj3TtxQ@mail.gmail.com> To: "t. khan" <teekhan42@gmail.com>, Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a114b1a164af96e054805e8c2 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, HTML_MESSAGE, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE 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: Wed, 08 Feb 2017 14:52:13 +0000 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 <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org> List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>, <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/> List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>, <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2017 14:44:55 -0000 --001a114b1a164af96e054805e8c2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 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 <luke@dashjr.org> 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 > > --001a114b1a164af96e054805e8c2 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <div dir=3D"ltr">10% say literally never.=C2=A0 That seems like a significa= nt disenfranchisement and lack of consensus.</div><div class=3D"gmail_extra= "><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 2:25 PM, t. khan vi= a bitcoin-dev <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.lin= uxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</= a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0= 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><di= v>On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 2:53 PM, Luke Dashjr <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href= =3D"mailto:luke@dashjr.org" target=3D"_blank">luke@dashjr.org</a>></span= > wrote:<br></div><div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote= "><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;borde= r-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204)= ;padding-left:1ex"><span class=3D""><span class=3D"m_5903971323563278916gma= il-">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<br> > >size increase hardfork ever.<br> ><br> </span></span><span class=3D""><span class=3D"m_5903971323563278916gmail-">= > Luke, how do you know the community opposes that? Specifically, how di= d you<br> > come to this conclusion?<br> <br> </span></span><a href=3D"http://www.strawpoll.me/12228388/r" rel=3D"norefer= rer" target=3D"_blank">http://www.strawpoll.me/122283<wbr>88/r</a></blockqu= ote><div><br></div>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.<div>=C2= =A0</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8e= x;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,2= 04,204);padding-left:1ex"><span class=3D""><span class=3D"m_590397132356327= 8916gmail-"> > >Your version doesn't address the current block size<br> > >issues (ie, the blocks being too large).<br> ><br> > Why do you think blocks are "too large"? Please cite some ev= idence. I've<br> > asked this before and you ignored it, but an answer would be helpful t= o the<br> > discussion.<br> <br> </span></span>Full node count is far below the safe minimum of 85% of econo= mic activity.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Is this causing a problem= now? If so, what?</div><div>=C2=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" = style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:s= olid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"> Typically reasons given for people not using full nodes themselves come dow= n<br> to the high resource requirements caused by the block size.</blockquote><di= v><br></div><div>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></div><div><= br></div><div>- t.k.</div></div><br></div></div></div> <br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br> bitcoin-dev mailing list<br> <a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.= <wbr>linuxfoundation.org</a><br> <a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" = rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.<wbr>org= /mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-<wbr>dev</a><br> <br></blockquote></div><br></div> --001a114b1a164af96e054805e8c2--