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'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, "alp alp via bitcoin-dev" <<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-= dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>>= ; 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"><<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-de= v@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.<wbr>linux= foundation.org</a>></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"><<a href=3D"mailto:luke@dashjr.org= " target=3D"_blank">luke@dashjr.org</a>></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> > >My BIP draft didn't make progress because the community oppose= s any block<br> > >size increase hardfork ever.<br> ><br> </span></span><span><span class=3D"m_-8603678674590328520m_5903971323563278= 916gmail-">> Luke, how do you know the community opposes that? Specifica= lly, how did 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><span class=3D"m_-8603678674590328520m_5903= 971323563278916gmail-"> > >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></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--