Return-Path: <andrew.johnson83@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
	[172.17.192.35])
	by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9697EBA9
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Wed,  8 Feb 2017 15:51:26 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-vk0-f45.google.com (mail-vk0-f45.google.com
	[209.85.213.45])
	by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F061B19B
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Wed,  8 Feb 2017 15:51:25 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-vk0-f45.google.com with SMTP id r136so103669949vke.1
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Wed, 08 Feb 2017 07:51:25 -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=VvmEHfs3lAQe00J2Qmk9m2jBZLB7IWJoGkWiCT7Bj7A=;
	b=f7uVmL21cS7HLKeDiLNpUJJiv4e/9ktgjp1udN4Um/nbFT80arIR1Mte3aG/f91A4S
	MTv3o0PNKa2a3F/w60bTNM9bi/n89cuZ0NR9+FeVOScctmOTghLRLbT3o0Zc7Gz6b/l5
	kXPU5+KJ2y5s+luYK0H+DQsdRpQjrjNPnuqXhMidOpz5Se1PfTbDeLgHuQ5gej5uPl0q
	RcCDwJgjSWdxYfAM5343lnRHnfJWgcZf7EvCDzeOWKGgw5XYD4u+YDySwWmLUxRthBfG
	IsZmDpyxqcI6sC2vcaktyegf92XSEL6AsF+GEmOMLRzUZObcxxwfvvrxhpB6vdF7XSB9
	1OYw==
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=VvmEHfs3lAQe00J2Qmk9m2jBZLB7IWJoGkWiCT7Bj7A=;
	b=fupss2xSvwwLBAE9xCzNUHSIs1TNN2Tq1GA8MrTzQG2qYOSXTCeTmVD+JzBK5wTQMg
	bKq8ig8s9KrlE24wF8YJ5kud533k9RftQ8NNft+jMcWGo8aiYGQV32jdxL3vmTeWuKI/
	9d2JMtq4DhzeUKtyYPbT3bx473Rw2yME093Sp/qcK1jhKNuUdcgWgxniQK3AEqRPUpuc
	Q0wBLGibtMczuP4d4v1pZVUrr6sljUTCnwYtMh0LVypLIkCAjzEeazUcgRO/0q3seYJF
	/K2YtSRpxrA+dyTeixonDKTTWHtn4pZ6ET4V8ujD/zx0S9lKxBn4sIlXE04xb1NZ+j2X
	Ydgg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39mgAPynSUynX9JBcy2PJOjh3UfVMJjmKS1RrH2L3Wz6eEZUxzgbEI8Udac7fVKlbt4KkaXo7mImHp06jA==
X-Received: by 10.31.218.68 with SMTP id r65mr10351786vkg.27.1486569084992;
	Wed, 08 Feb 2017 07:51:24 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.103.152.19 with HTTP; Wed, 8 Feb 2017 07:51:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.103.152.19 with HTTP; Wed, 8 Feb 2017 07:51:24 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAMBsKS9OS2tA4bG-JG96XNZTiPyuq322Qu=fyJcZ1BtVj3TtxQ@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>
	<CAMBsKS9OS2tA4bG-JG96XNZTiPyuq322Qu=fyJcZ1BtVj3TtxQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Andrew Johnson <andrew.johnson83@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2017 09:51:24 -0600
Message-ID: <CAAy62_LcpgXss9hMTG_kwoGbuTOmfpmEc-awi5gNybq0fYErfQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: alp alp <alp.bitcoin@gmail.com>, 
	Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c07b01c3ec663054806d6f8
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
	DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT,FREEMAIL_FROM,
	HTML_MESSAGE, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,
	RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM autolearn=no 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
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 15:51:26 -0000

--94eb2c07b01c3ec663054806d6f8
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

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 <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
>
>

_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

--94eb2c07b01c3ec663054806d6f8
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"auto"><div>You&#39;re never going to reach 100% agreement, and =
stifling the network literally forever to please a tiny minority is daft.<b=
r><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Feb 8, 2017 =
8:52 AM, &quot;alp alp via bitcoin-dev&quot; &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-=
dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt=
; wrote:<br type=3D"attribution"><blockquote class=3D"quote" style=3D"margi=
n:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr">=
10% say literally never.=C2=A0 That seems like a significant disenfranchise=
ment and lack of consensus.</div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=
=3D"gmail_quote"><div class=3D"elided-text">On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 2:25 PM,=
 t. khan via bitcoin-dev <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-de=
v@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.<wbr>linux=
foundation.org</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_qu=
ote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex=
"><div class=3D"elided-text"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div>On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 2=
:53 PM, Luke Dashjr <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:luke@dashjr.org=
" target=3D"_blank">luke@dashjr.org</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br></div><div><di=
v class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><blockquote class=3D"gma=
il_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-le=
ft-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><span><=
span class=3D"m_-8603678674590328520m_5903971323563278916gmail-">On Monday,=
 February 06, 2017 6:19:43 PM you wrote:<br>
&gt; &gt;My BIP draft didn&#39;t make progress because the community oppose=
s any block<br>
&gt; &gt;size increase hardfork ever.<br>
&gt;<br>
</span></span><span><span class=3D"m_-8603678674590328520m_5903971323563278=
916gmail-">&gt; Luke, how do you know the community opposes that? Specifica=
lly, how did you<br>
&gt; 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 &quot;the community opposes a=
ny block increase ever&quot;? 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><span class=3D"m_-8603678674590328520m_5903=
971323563278916gmail-">
&gt; &gt;Your version doesn&#39;t address the current block size<br>
&gt; &gt;issues (ie, the blocks being too large).<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; Why do you think blocks are &quot;too large&quot;? Please cite some ev=
idence. I&#39;ve<br>
&gt; asked this before and you ignored it, but an answer would be helpful t=
o the<br>
&gt; 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&#39;=
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></div><div class=3D"quoted-text">______________________________<wbr>___=
______________<br>
bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">=
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundat<wbr>ion.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-d<wbr>ev</a><br>
<br></div></blockquote></div><br></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></div></div>

--94eb2c07b01c3ec663054806d6f8--