MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CACq0ZD5TTJ=dvz+o-ex6vUWAnOtMfD=VE7JaZWXYM1Lo2L_9wA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CALqxMTGBt7MNs5YWf8QzKe+4Fr-uKVimf8=VbytBANEDm=s50g@mail.gmail.com>
	<CANEZrP31AEson9DZ=ZU7d4t=DvmGodh1ja6EaZ6xQZ3bFEXeVA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CALqxMTFC7zBN9GvHAZLQj4SbXjzkCAM9meSErd3qn7uCoON98Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<CANEZrP148U0V7bU-u0tOTk2xWwq5wy-yU-jk805DcU_3cBHtnw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABaSBawXZDcyR96g4hBNAiFRDpTcUJX+bMXyqGeuY5wVm4k1KQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CALx=ga7axVzUvpUd5Fvr=UruzUZWhXqJ7ibCEzjrRC-58gSWjw@mail.gmail.com>
	<9834E283-727C-47F7-A3D0-667951727E5F@gmail.com>
	<CACq0ZD5TTJ=dvz+o-ex6vUWAnOtMfD=VE7JaZWXYM1Lo2L_9wA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mark Friedenbach <mark@friedenbach.org>
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2015 17:41:00 -0700
Message-ID: <CAOG=w-vFMczkSx+Dv06sX6tLp1vn3a-4g1B8JaGDFs_BDgbc8g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Aaron Voisine <voisine@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bdcab34479266051897d509
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] questions about bitcoin-XT code fork &
 non-consensus hard-fork
Precedence: list

--047d7bdcab34479266051897d509
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 5:08 PM, Aaron Voisine <voisine@gmail.com> wrote:

> Wasn't the XT hard fork proposed as a last resort, should the bitcoin-core
> maintainers simply refuse to lift the 1Mb limit? No one wants to go that
> route. An alternate hard-fork proposal like BIP100 that gets consensus, or
> a modified version of gavin's that ups the limit to 8Mb instead of 20Mb, or
> hell even some major changes to the non-consunsus code to make it
> adequately handle the situation when blocks fill up, and allow wallet
> software to continue working with a send-and-forget use pattern, any of
> these would be enough to avoid the need for an XT only hard-fork.
>
> So far BIP100 is the only one that seems to actually be getting any sort
> of momentum toward consensus, and it was proposed... 2 days ago? When the
> XT fork was proposed as a last resort, it was when the opponents were (to
> my understanding) suggesting we just let blocks fill up, and hopefully
> things would just work out on their own.
>

We are not reaching consensus about any proposal, Garzik's or otherwise.

--047d7bdcab34479266051897d509
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 5:08 PM, Aaron Voisine <span dir=
=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:voisine@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">voisine=
@gmail.com</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=
=3D"gmail_quote"><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8=
ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div>Wasn&#39;t the XT hard=
 fork proposed as a last resort, should the bitcoin-core maintainers simply=
 refuse to lift the 1Mb limit? No one wants to go that route. An alternate =
hard-fork proposal like BIP100 that gets consensus, or a modified version o=
f gavin&#39;s that ups the limit to 8Mb instead of 20Mb, or hell even some =
major changes to the non-consunsus code to make it adequately handle the si=
tuation when blocks fill up, and allow wallet software to continue working =
with a send-and-forget use pattern, any of these would be enough to avoid t=
he need for an XT only hard-fork.<div><br></div><div>So far BIP100 is the o=
nly one that seems to actually be getting any sort of momentum toward conse=
nsus, and it was proposed... 2 days ago? When the XT fork was proposed as a=
 last resort, it was when the opponents were (to my understanding) suggesti=
ng we just let blocks fill up, and hopefully things would just work out on =
their own.</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>We are not reaching =
consensus about any proposal, Garzik&#39;s or otherwise. <br></div></div></=
div></div>

--047d7bdcab34479266051897d509--