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
|
Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <mh.in.england@gmail.com>) id 1YqfJV-000259-2K
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Fri, 08 May 2015 10:15:25 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 74.125.82.46 as permitted sender)
client-ip=74.125.82.46; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com;
helo=mail-wg0-f46.google.com;
Received: from mail-wg0-f46.google.com ([74.125.82.46])
by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1YqfJS-0004XU-W4
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Fri, 08 May 2015 10:15:25 +0000
Received: by wgiu9 with SMTP id u9so68030500wgi.3
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Fri, 08 May 2015 03:15:17 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.105.193 with SMTP id go1mr4715471wib.92.1431080116921;
Fri, 08 May 2015 03:15:16 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com
Received: by 10.194.143.9 with HTTP; Fri, 8 May 2015 03:15:16 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <16096345.A1MpJQQkRW@crushinator>
References: <16096345.A1MpJQQkRW@crushinator>
Date: Fri, 8 May 2015 12:15:16 +0200
X-Google-Sender-Auth: gd6tTkJkDZQcDwQjF5NZh59ryz8
Message-ID: <CANEZrP3jXzj7Z2nr40YRLFwk3c4eH1UQJ+NnN+ZFDOieZSAUeg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
To: Matt Whitlock <bip@mattwhitlock.name>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d0418280003b11605158f4ee5
X-Spam-Score: -0.5 (/)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
-1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for
sender-domain
0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
(mh.in.england[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature,
not necessarily valid
-0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
X-Headers-End: 1YqfJS-0004XU-W4
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proposed alternatives to the 20MB step
function
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 08 May 2015 10:15:25 -0000
--f46d0418280003b11605158f4ee5
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
There are certainly arguments to be made for and against all of these
proposals.
The fixed 20mb cap isn't actually my proposal at all, it is from Gavin. I
am supporting it because anything is better than nothing. Gavin originally
proposed the block size be a function of time. That got dropped, I suppose
to make the process of getting consensus easier. It is "the simplest thing
that can possibly work".
I would like to see the process of chain forking becoming less traumatic. I
remember Gavin, Jeff and I once considered (on stage at a conference??)
that maybe there should be a scheduled fork every year, so people know when
to expect them.
If everything goes well, I see no reason why 20mb would be the limit
forever.
--f46d0418280003b11605158f4ee5
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr">There are certainly arguments to be made for and against a=
ll of these proposals.<div><br></div><div>The fixed 20mb cap isn't actu=
ally my proposal at all, it is from Gavin. I am supporting it because anyth=
ing is better than nothing. Gavin originally proposed the block size be a f=
unction of time. That got dropped, I suppose to make the process of getting=
consensus easier. It is "the simplest thing that can possibly work&qu=
ot;.</div><div><br></div><div>I would like to see the process of chain fork=
ing becoming less traumatic. I remember Gavin, Jeff and I once considered (=
on stage at a conference??) that maybe there should be a scheduled fork eve=
ry year, so people know when to expect them.</div><div><br></div><div>If ev=
erything goes well, I see no reason why 20mb would be the limit forever.</d=
iv></div>
--f46d0418280003b11605158f4ee5--
|
