1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
|
Return-Path: <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4C243305
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 28 Jun 2015 12:13:55 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-wg0-f54.google.com (mail-wg0-f54.google.com [74.125.82.54])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 84214F4
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 28 Jun 2015 12:13:54 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by wgjx7 with SMTP id x7so47200123wgj.2
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 28 Jun 2015 05:13:53 -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
:content-transfer-encoding;
bh=8VudICHtqAbAgtuEwOb7qvuQWWePwczt29IMQ3YHC2c=;
b=TDKVQbujBTE0SJwhD/7qPG+DrU7wvQ5d/FWvmhT9fddbLCgalv0Ub4dF0IxdfxrCg0
uH+0t6Zs/16Hh4S8hHuSa9Z3Dnc/6byi8jU85sfJR7H1Yvio/cRzURwkHdD4jT0cN2Lp
HcbzDNiLGnoA0mI/oyi1nwsR4spSwHFgbchmWhOYSvDCy1nvH59IPQPfHLHoljO2Dgye
NbT0q3RAD3vhrzlbQ7GWJZWf8adR/VuEH9CeO+Dqn1dKPDmqFPo6K9utw0hL5oz/nwFJ
lz1wbUASb5d7yILaqwlUuBkLGgCq9AvSStwTn5emsAOw5owLKnYbFCsORdFlz/EK2qS/
i+tA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlophwx/nkugtoHaDlLWLGRkoMNIf1KYZfLptXz3WheQSlV21y535qdFCp90IyewcDqRdcP
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.194.120.198 with SMTP id le6mr19722847wjb.133.1435493633203;
Sun, 28 Jun 2015 05:13:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.194.95.168 with HTTP; Sun, 28 Jun 2015 05:13:52 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20150627121016.2360041A3E@smtp.hushmail.com>
References: <CAPg+sBjOj9eXiDG0F6G54SVKkStF_1HRu2wzGqtFF5X_NAWy4w@mail.gmail.com>
<20150627074259.GA25420@amethyst.visucore.com>
<20150627095501.C59B541A40@smtp.hushmail.com>
<20150627100400.GC25420@amethyst.visucore.com>
<20150627102912.06E2641A3E@smtp.hushmail.com>
<CABm2gDpnzjph5SKTf+8GWgwe+njS=k2GNm9uL73RC-EV=Y5wug@mail.gmail.com>
<20150627121016.2360041A3E@smtp.hushmail.com>
Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2015 14:13:52 +0200
Message-ID: <CABm2gDovynxmZmf_voz-19mmb5k0R4Snxcucx-WObt_stkAL9A@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
To: NxtChg <nxtchg@hush.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,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 <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: Sun, 28 Jun 2015 12:13:55 -0000
On Sat, Jun 27, 2015 at 2:10 PM, NxtChg <nxtchg@hush.com> wrote:
>
> On 6/27/2015 at 2:04 PM, "Jorge Tim=C3=B3n" <jtimon@jtimon.cc> wrote:
>
>>But that option is not unknown...
>
> It is, until it actually happens. Before that, anything is a speculation.=
That's why risk is attached to both "doing nothing" and "raising the limit=
".
Fortunately we have a lower limit in the standard mining policy to see
if the skies turn purple when we hit that limit like some people
predict.
> Various people perceive these risks differently and there is no clear mec=
hanism currently to somehow gauge what the majority wants. So it's tempting=
to just give up and say: let's do nothing.
>
> In this situation, doing a "software fork" seems like the only way to act=
ually see how many people/interests are in favor of bigger blocks.
But this is NOT a way to see the majority of anything. I can run 1000
nodes, have you heard of sybil attacks?
There's simply no decentralized way of voting that works. Otherwise we
could vote on each block instead of using proof of work.
Miners voting on size is also ridiculous since big miners have an
incentive to completely remove the limit and make smaller miners
unprofitable.
> (Whether the majority has a moral right to dictate the minority is a toug=
h philosophical question, which should probably be left out of this discuss=
ion :)
No, this is very important. The majority has no right to dictate on
the minority.
If the majority of bitcoiners wanted demurrage (and we actually had a
working method for "measuring majorities"), the minority would still
say "these are not the rules we signed up for, go make freicoin as a
separate chain".
And that is very reasonable. If some people want a more centralized
version of Bitcoin they can create an altcoin too. Doesn't dogecoin
already have big blocks?
|
