Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 62959ACB for ; Fri, 26 Jun 2015 19:12:01 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-ie0-f174.google.com (mail-ie0-f174.google.com [209.85.223.174]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 044F4143 for ; Fri, 26 Jun 2015 19:12:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: by iebrt9 with SMTP id rt9so81773511ieb.2 for ; Fri, 26 Jun 2015 12:12:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=+NGKtT3PO0lI1UEQD7Cp5WMHItMPq0c3Utoj+UonOZI=; b=Qs0jOLZ0QThfQgcsXIX5BadwGqHxU01DBnp4x+hJxJOggye/6cpzEwY/0wwpsXoQQx 07vdovqfKHI2eK/jtdUZh105ki3vjW780EaMHowPVbO48z9ynN2CarR4kEz2nIkdOav+ 5Xl1nsP8rJzGfO3zyPjhPqbnL0opl/ECCZ25ENlcZh45Efdt26qm01OxFzM/i1jogZfI 44PIApT1aahvvGuQ6AHhuuU+p2Rnpx6pL0JHfqxsekaPeYmBeI8E6id8dPxCx6DMDzdH 5AOA/Ga0LIvdSd0UN8pdmsDfNecWLVTH8Uor8Y6J5x3n4SQKrplmZ/mDpEfJsuSuaZBY tvIQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnzl1swg5n/MJH9F45WDHN/V3tD0CZxNVZOrtzH6ymC0FJbdhkSSfvTHmmw64yP2MmzXU+9 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.43.40.130 with SMTP id tq2mr5338094icb.46.1435345920500; Fri, 26 Jun 2015 12:12:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.107.149.20 with HTTP; Fri, 26 Jun 2015 12:12:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: [208.54.4.150] Received: by 10.107.149.20 with HTTP; Fri, 26 Jun 2015 12:12:00 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <558D9E49.7000601@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2015 12:12:00 -0700 Message-ID: From: Mark Friedenbach To: Tier Nolan Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=bcaec51dd849b8c05e051970834d X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,HTML_MESSAGE, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] The need for larger blocks X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2015 19:12:01 -0000 --bcaec51dd849b8c05e051970834d Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 This is a hard fork. It is not about miners, at all. 2013 showed that when there is true consensus mining can be coordinated on the order of hours or days. This is about pushing through a coercive change to the decentralization tradeoffs of bitcoin without unanimous consent. On Jun 26, 2015 12:03 PM, "Tier Nolan" wrote: > On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 7:47 PM, Patrick Strateman < > patrick.strateman@gmail.com> wrote: > >> For a proposed hard fork to reach a level of consensus necessary to be >> safe requires that there be a clear and self evident course of action. >> > > Safety increases with more lead-in time. If the reference client was > updated so that the hard fork happened in two years, it would be pretty > safe. Miners would have time to update. > > If miners (or the community) objected, it is sort of like a game of > chicken. > > This is one of the problems with not making decisions in advance, the > resulting hard fork is inherently safer. > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > > --bcaec51dd849b8c05e051970834d Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

This is a hard fork. It is not about miners, at all. 2013 sh= owed that when there is true consensus mining can be coordinated on the ord= er of hours or days. This is about pushing through a coercive change to the= decentralization tradeoffs of bitcoin without unanimous consent.

On Jun 26, 2015 12:03 PM, "Tier Nolan"= <tier.nolan@gmail.com> w= rote:
On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 7:47 PM, Patrick Strateman <= ;patrick.s= trateman@gmail.com> wrote:
=20 =20 =20
For a proposed hard fork to reach a level of consensus necessary to be safe requires that there be a clear and self evident course of action.

Safety increases with= more lead-in time.=C2=A0 If the reference client was updated so that the h= ard fork happened in two years, it would be pretty safe.=C2=A0 Miners would= have time to update.

If miners (or the community) object= ed, it is sort of like a game of chicken.

This is one of = the problems with not making decisions in advance, the resulting hard fork = is inherently safer.

_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.= linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail= man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

--bcaec51dd849b8c05e051970834d--