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
|
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 764D5847
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 21 Aug 2015 20:09:36 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-lb0-f176.google.com (mail-lb0-f176.google.com
[209.85.217.176])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1B86711E
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 21 Aug 2015 20:09:35 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by lbbsx3 with SMTP id sx3so50258997lbb.0
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 21 Aug 2015 13:09:33 -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=CxKoKkG+lP9ZJ3fFbAkNT/ONOcGUxCOC3VLbYSLg1K0=;
b=I0l97ZGQX+pM8t2uofORGJyiUxdDEETARiwgy/VL32z2IEGYAa30FMbX17HKjfdqn0
dScGNVFR1sYiX26VIFpqi0BBpCEpJooZYKdocMsenXeXxv2GitOsAShVq41yJ7uIntaQ
CBNITGCOJCUXGQWFoCxFG4OIWcZy2RgxPulHbu4lXqlBwhR1eBTduhk1L3DjElFuljOb
S+Jp0spwg8a/5HFkve2p++APNSUaVdbQY9JIUdEZWtZvwGZBQLFfLflmK1byThyXWV+o
F/bd+Y27SC4+1Oe7Ye/Uq1OI2B+uQbD8/ZAuLgsLVpQce/6GX2N3ay13nuC3DZak4RnN
vUQw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkSFbomAb2QA57JnyU8oMAvZWG8QGqS74fhaboOCkv6ytrrZqAeRKejLRi4yrFzC2Q60TMv
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.152.42.170 with SMTP id p10mr9138066lal.39.1440187773535;
Fri, 21 Aug 2015 13:09:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.25.15.22 with HTTP; Fri, 21 Aug 2015 13:09:33 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAFkt3UOzL2eeYq9ntCDdp5so+5G=73W9v0kP98i+80J9DNWn_g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAED3CWgTOMFgaM6bBfU0Dn-R0NrdrhGAQo34wHEneYkTtB4Opg@mail.gmail.com>
<CAEieSeSw04FYCCa-Df+V6BgJo1RHqPvJWt9t=c-JCC=dnhraWA@mail.gmail.com>
<CABm2gDp0o5DBzuoyZ=SFvnBXTwPYFWhdOqUPkP_M_3koNMVP1g@mail.gmail.com>
<CAFkt3UOzL2eeYq9ntCDdp5so+5G=73W9v0kP98i+80J9DNWn_g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2015 22:09:33 +0200
Message-ID: <CABm2gDqhRmJ-7e2SEEPGgr7OXwpb7pPUQq3tsXJx2K7nDftZag@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
To: Sriram Karra <karra.etc@gmail.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 <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Dynamically Controlled Bitcoin Block Size Max Cap
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: Fri, 21 Aug 2015 20:09:36 -0000
On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 2:13 PM, Sriram Karra <karra.etc@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 1:01 PM, Jorge Tim=C3=B3n
> <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>> For the 73th time or so this month on this list:
>>
>> The maximum block size consensus rule limits mining centralization
>> (which is currently pretty bad).
>>
>> But don't worry about not being an authority on the subject: Gavin
>> (who has written extensively on the subject) doesn't seem to
>> understand this either.
>
>
> If your goal is to get the Miners (who are highly centralised today) to
> implement a change in consensus rule that will limit mining centralisatio=
n,
> guess what public position you will be taking?
The rule is already there. My goal is to make sure we understand the
potential consequences of changing that rule in the "less limitation
to mining centralization" better before changing it.
|
