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
108
109
110
111
|
Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>) id 1YshTv-0006NC-PM
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Thu, 14 May 2015 00:58:35 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.214.182 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.214.182; envelope-from=pieter.wuille@gmail.com;
helo=mail-ob0-f182.google.com;
Received: from mail-ob0-f182.google.com ([209.85.214.182])
by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1YshTu-0001oH-1h
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Thu, 14 May 2015 00:58:35 +0000
Received: by obfe9 with SMTP id e9so42761184obf.1
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Wed, 13 May 2015 17:58:28 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.182.16.161 with SMTP id h1mr1333434obd.49.1431565108652;
Wed, 13 May 2015 17:58:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.60.94.36 with HTTP; Wed, 13 May 2015 17:58:28 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CACq0ZD4_zxhm=qWrP+Nr+fQER4s2R8i7qRjX4HsBWN46uOP2MA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <5550D8BE.6070207@electrum.org>
<ce3d34c92efd1cf57326e4679550944e@national.shitposting.agency>
<CABsx9T1VgxEJWxrYTs+2hXGnGrSLGJ6mVcAexjXLvK7Vu+e3EA@mail.gmail.com>
<CABm2gDoQ-atjWKB0c6AC1ZQ9fy22ceFtHHwpLmnX8DLW4DAgYA@mail.gmail.com>
<CACq0ZD4_zxhm=qWrP+Nr+fQER4s2R8i7qRjX4HsBWN46uOP2MA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 13 May 2015 17:58:28 -0700
Message-ID: <CAPg+sBjxXe0spytGsP1BUzNZhJFDYu_yacdhTy5F+O-X8EG7NQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>
To: Aaron Voisine <voisine@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c2fbe0c6312505160039fe
X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/)
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
(pieter.wuille[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
-0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from
author's domain
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: 1YshTu-0001oH-1h
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Long-term mining incentives
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: Thu, 14 May 2015 00:58:35 -0000
--001a11c2fbe0c6312505160039fe
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 5:48 PM, Aaron Voisine <voisine@gmail.com> wrote:
> We have $3billion plus of value in this system to defend. The safe,
> conservative course is to increase the block size. Miners already have an
> incentive to find ways to encourage higher fees and we can help them with
> standard recommended propagation rules and hybrid priority/fee transaction
> selection for blocks that increases confirmation delays for low fee
> transactions.
>
You may find that the most economical solution, but I can't understand how
you can call it conservative.
Suggesting a hard fork is betting the survival of the entire ecosystem on
the bet that everyone will agree with and upgrade to new suggested software
before a flag date.
--
Pieter
--001a11c2fbe0c6312505160039fe
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr">On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 5:48 PM, Aaron Voisine <span dir=
=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:voisine@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">voisine=
@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=
=3D"gmail_quote"><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8=
ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><span clas=
s=3D""><span style=3D"font-size:13px"></span></span>We have $3billion plus =
of value in this system to defend. The safe, conservative course is to incr=
ease the block size. Miners already have an incentive to find ways to encou=
rage higher fees =A0and we can help them with standard recommended propagat=
ion rules and hybrid priority/fee transaction selection for blocks that inc=
reases confirmation delays for low fee transactions.<span class=3D"HOEnZb">=
</span><br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>You may find that the mos=
t economical solution, but I can't understand how you can call it conse=
rvative.<br><br></div><div>Suggesting a hard fork is betting the survival o=
f the entire ecosystem on the bet that everyone will agree with and upgrade=
to new suggested software before a flag date.<br><br>-- <br></div><div>Pie=
ter<br><br></div></div></div></div>
--001a11c2fbe0c6312505160039fe--
|
