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
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
|
Return-Path: <joroark@vt.edu>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6013DBDD
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 21 Dec 2015 05:29:26 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from omr1.cc.vt.edu (outbound.smtp.vt.edu [198.82.183.121])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 264C310C
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 21 Dec 2015 05:29:24 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mr2.cc.vt.edu (mr2.cc.ipv6.vt.edu
[IPv6:2001:468:c80:2105:0:212:7ed0:359e])
by omr1.cc.vt.edu (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id tBL5TNGF003477
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 21 Dec 2015 00:29:23 -0500
Received: from mail-pf0-f171.google.com (mail-pf0-f171.google.com
[209.85.192.171])
by mr2.cc.vt.edu (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id tBL5TI0T020931
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 21 Dec 2015 00:29:23 -0500
Received: by mail-pf0-f171.google.com with SMTP id n128so65715832pfn.0
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 20 Dec 2015 21:29:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date
:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type
:content-transfer-encoding;
bh=awzNd0EoIJOFqeapncja7gDYEH26Ib3vh7FH3Fx35Vs=;
b=h/fqdf+6pRDNaqPkJ85Vd3IaEOfxZYAXT0Lkwmn/TI+jSLShi3v4E08NCBSXxuloRe
uAk/ADg1rwoiGwEz/anrdQbdfxYWqZjTMLigCJG4YcbCxElY2yr6SUX+5KM+6afXx1Sq
WyiNXnaccRONveUSIX92hOgFNKNRKjZsX99gqB8n0r5acKO2nTnoB+Qf/E+jipNhO9bb
PknsAn2T3IqkNF3Dz3UtCrnWdFR0S2FnIbCmYC9U3bnh05UxEfBF+3o9oSNvjaOHONX4
i6vhssNTDuBP2+/3yB00VW+EJESET4tPLUDrxOscwM+Rpm4o71VX1guvEPj6OPJidZ1G
OBtQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQklcHusu7ZTQfdMh9kn34FKmJSDOFnCyGVITVLWdlsBBVV+9p1cRWzlOLVbGqB+YkdrGgpMw4QAfFmhGwkt9qdXulkR6wTW3p63YLCXFHqji2S/ry4KMhjBChx4pWTAOcqtoX6omFmHJQrqR1rCMqrbT2L6Gs56WaP6dsGVhojjllB5pK0NyYhfcuOCxE7X46xMaiEdhkrW8mK5hkf2oCCFfUANjUrPEyVZQEV77Ckw/gjY0sw=
X-Received: by 10.98.16.70 with SMTP id y67mr2118390pfi.150.1450675758150;
Sun, 20 Dec 2015 21:29:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by 10.98.16.70 with SMTP id y67mr2118374pfi.150.1450675758019;
Sun, 20 Dec 2015 21:29:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.230] (c-24-22-36-12.hsd1.or.comcast.net.
[24.22.36.12]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id
ux2sm35964854pac.46.2015.12.20.21.29.17
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER);
Sun, 20 Dec 2015 21:29:17 -0800 (PST)
To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
References: <CAAS2fgQyVs1fAEj+vqp8E2=FRnqsgs7VUKqALNBHNxRMDsHdVg@mail.gmail.com>
<20151208110752.GA31180@amethyst.visucore.com>
<CAPWm=eUomq6SBC0ky0WSs5=_G942vigm4RmgYuq0O-yJ-vqC2A@mail.gmail.com>
<CAPg+sBig9O5+he0PWhTkX5iin14QLz5+eCCu6KfwU=DxntKYtg@mail.gmail.com>
<CAPg+sBhQN2HDvH8dfq2VsQ0dTA9V=HgQsCJdP6B72fj1SDA4yw@mail.gmail.com>
<CAOG=w-soDwM+iZAOAYEEh+Fb=qQ4CkY622L8mfB59yPmb8tmmQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Douglas Roark <joroark@vt.edu>
X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1210
Message-ID: <56778E2C.6040709@vt.edu>
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 2015 21:29:16 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:38.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAOG=w-soDwM+iZAOAYEEh+Fb=qQ4CkY622L8mfB59yPmb8tmmQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,
RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Capacity increases for the Bitcoin system.
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: Mon, 21 Dec 2015 05:29:26 -0000
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512
On 2015/12/20 20:50, Mark Friedenbach via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> I am fully in support of the plan laid out in "Capacity increases
> for the bitcoin system".
>
> This plan provides real benefit to the ecosystem in solving a
> number of longstanding problems in bitcoin. It improves the
> scalability of bitcoin considerably.
>
> Furthermore it is time that we stop bikeshedding, start
> implementing, and move forward, lest we lose more developers to
> the toxic atmosphere this hard-fork debacle has created.
Another +1 here. While I'd still like to see some sort of short-term
bump happen this year - good points have been raised about SegWit
uptake by wallet devs, for one thing - I really do think this is one
of the last pieces of the puzzle that'll make Bitcoin reasonably
stable and robust. If people have legitimate concerns, that's great,
and they should be addressed. I just worry that more navel-gazing and
bikeshedding will play into the hands of those with less than noble
intentions. That and, due to the somewhat complicated nature of
SegWit, it may take time to get skeptical miners and wallet devs on-boar
d.
While we're talking about capacity increases, I'd like to reiterate
that I do think there should be some sort of short-term bump (Jeff's
BIP 102 or his "BIP 202" variant, Dr. Back's 2/4/8 proposal ("BIP
248"), etc.), hopefully chosen by this summer so that everybody can
start to prepare. I believe the KISS theory will work best. I talked
to a couple of miners at Scaling Bitcoin. It was obvious they
generally prefer simple solutions. (For that matter, if I put my
miner's cap on, I prefer simple solutions too!) The research presented
at Scaling Bitcoin regarding block size formulas was quite interesting
and worthy of discussion. The research was also, IMO, nowhere near
ready for consensus. Work and discussions on that front should
certainly continue and push for a more permanent (final?) block size
solution. I just think that, barring some extraordinary solution that
hasn't been widely discussed yet, a permanent solution isn't feasible
right now. A temporary bump isn't ideal. It's just the only thing I've
seen that strikes me as having any real shot at consensus.
- --
- ---
Douglas Roark
Cryptocurrency, network security, travel, and art.
https://onename.com/droark
joroark@vt.edu
PGP key ID: 26623924
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org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=jJzD
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
|
