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
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
|
Return-Path: <rjmarti2@millersville.edu>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EDFAB5AC
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 10 Feb 2017 04:10:20 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from outgoing.millersville.edu (outgoing.millersville.edu
[166.66.86.75])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E19618D
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 10 Feb 2017 04:10:20 +0000 (UTC)
X-ASG-Debug-ID: 1486699816-0793ff17841437b0001-D3WCip
Received: from HUBCAS2.muad.local (hubcas2.muad.local [166.66.87.94]) by
outgoing.millersville.edu with ESMTP id UNq5LoKmNh0p0tCH for
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 09 Feb 2017 23:10:16 -0500 (EST)
X-Barracuda-Envelope-From: rjmarti2@millersville.edu
X-Barracuda-Effective-Source-IP: hubcas2.muad.local[166.66.87.94]
X-Barracuda-Apparent-Source-IP: 166.66.87.94
Received: from STUDMAIL1.muad.local ([2002:a642:56b8::a642:56b8]) by
HUBCAS2.muad.local ([2002:a642:575e::a642:575e]) with mapi id
14.03.0301.000; Thu, 9 Feb 2017 23:10:16 -0500
From: Ryan J Martin <rjmarti2@millersville.edu>
To: "bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org"
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Thread-Topic: [bitcoin-dev] A Modified Version of Luke-jr's Block Size BIP
X-ASG-Orig-Subj: Re: [bitcoin-dev] A Modified Version of Luke-jr's Block Size
BIP
Thread-Index: AQHSg0wDvjWBZfRzqECU1DRpu5FnAg==
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2017 04:10:15 +0000
Message-ID: <127281C1AA02374F8AAD9EE04FAE878A02154E80BD@STUDMail1.muad.local>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [71.207.55.31]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Barracuda-Connect: hubcas2.muad.local[166.66.87.94]
X-Barracuda-Start-Time: 1486699816
X-Barracuda-URL: https://166.66.86.75:443/cgi-mod/mark.cgi
X-Barracuda-Scan-Msg-Size: 4677
X-Virus-Scanned: by bsmtpd at millersville.edu
X-Barracuda-BRTS-Status: 1
X-Barracuda-Spam-Score: 0.00
X-Barracuda-Spam-Status: No, SCORE=0.00 using global scores of TAG_LEVEL=1000.0
QUARANTINE_LEVEL=4.5 KILL_LEVEL=1000.0
tests=MAILTO_TO_SPAM_ADDR
X-Barracuda-Spam-Report: Code version 3.2, rules version 3.2.3.36427
Rule breakdown below
pts rule name description
---- ----------------------
--------------------------------------------------
0.00 MAILTO_TO_SPAM_ADDR Includes a link to a likely spammer email
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,
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
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 10 Feb 2017 10:23:41 +0000
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] A Modified Version of Luke-jr's Block Size BIP
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol 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, 10 Feb 2017 04:10:21 -0000
"10% say literally never. That seems like a significant disenfranchisement=
=0A=
and lack of consensus."=0A=
=0A=
Certainly the poll results should be taken with a grain of salt and not a d=
efinitive answer or measure . =0A=
However if we agree the poll has some worth (or even if not, then lets use =
it as hyptothetical): If we split it into two groups: those okay with a har=
dfork at some point > now, and those never okay with hardfork, that means t=
here is 90% that agree a hardfork is acceptable in the future. That said, w=
hat threshold defines consensus then? 98%? 100%? =0A=
=0A=
Personally I think pursuing paths that maximize net social benefit in terms=
of cost surplus/burden is the best way to go since consensus is such an im=
possible to define, variable, case-by-case thing that doesn't always lead t=
o the best choice.=0A=
=0A=
-Ryan J. MArtin=0A=
=0A=
=0A=
________________________________________=0A=
From: bitcoin-dev-bounces@lists.linuxfoundation.org [bitcoin-dev-bounces@li=
sts.linuxfoundation.org] on behalf of bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfounda=
tion.org [bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org]=0A=
Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2017 7:00 AM=0A=
To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org=0A=
Subject: bitcoin-dev Digest, Vol 21, Issue 10=0A=
=0A=
Send bitcoin-dev mailing list submissions to=0A=
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org=0A=
=0A=
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit=0A=
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev=0A=
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to=0A=
bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org=0A=
=0A=
You can reach the person managing the list at=0A=
bitcoin-dev-owner@lists.linuxfoundation.org=0A=
=0A=
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific=0A=
than "Re: Contents of bitcoin-dev digest..."=0A=
=0A=
=0A=
Today's Topics:=0A=
=0A=
1. Re: A Modified Version of Luke-jr's Block Size BIP (alp alp)=0A=
=0A=
=0A=
----------------------------------------------------------------------=0A=
=0A=
Message: 1=0A=
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2017 08:44:52 -0600=0A=
From: alp alp <alp.bitcoin@gmail.com>=0A=
To: "t. khan" <teekhan42@gmail.com>, Bitcoin Protocol Discussion=0A=
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>=0A=
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] A Modified Version of Luke-jr's Block Size=0A=
BIP=0A=
Message-ID:=0A=
<CAMBsKS9OS2tA4bG-JG96XNZTiPyuq322Qu=3DfyJcZ1BtVj3TtxQ@mail.gmail.c=
om>=0A=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3D"utf-8"=0A=
=0A=
10% say literally never. That seems like a significant disenfranchisement=
=0A=
and lack of consensus.=0A=
=0A=
On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 2:25 PM, t. khan via bitcoin-dev <=0A=
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:=0A=
=0A=
> On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 2:53 PM, Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org> wrote:=0A=
>=0A=
>> On Monday, February 06, 2017 6:19:43 PM you wrote:=0A=
>> > >My BIP draft didn't make progress because the community opposes any=
=0A=
>> block=0A=
>> > >size increase hardfork ever.=0A=
>> >=0A=
>> > Luke, how do you know the community opposes that? Specifically, how di=
d=0A=
>> you=0A=
>> > come to this conclusion?=0A=
>>=0A=
>> http://www.strawpoll.me/12228388/r=0A=
>=0A=
>=0A=
> That poll shows 63% of votes want a larger than 1 MB block by this summer=
.=0A=
> How do you go from that to "the community opposes any block increase ever=
"?=0A=
> It shows the exact opposite of that.=0A=
>=0A=
>=0A=
>> > >Your version doesn't address the current block size=0A=
>> > >issues (ie, the blocks being too large).=0A=
>> >=0A=
>> > Why do you think blocks are "too large"? Please cite some evidence. I'=
ve=0A=
>> > asked this before and you ignored it, but an answer would be helpful t=
o=0A=
>> the=0A=
>> > discussion.=0A=
>>=0A=
>> Full node count is far below the safe minimum of 85% of economic activit=
y.=0A=
>>=0A=
>=0A=
> Is this causing a problem now? If so, what?=0A=
>=0A=
>=0A=
>> Typically reasons given for people not using full nodes themselves come=
=0A=
>> down=0A=
>> to the high resource requirements caused by the block size.=0A=
>=0A=
>=0A=
> The reason people stop running nodes is because there's no incentive to=
=0A=
> counteract the resource costs. Attempting to solve this by making blocks=
=0A=
> *smaller* is like curing a disease by killing the patient. (Incentivizing=
=0A=
> full node operation would fix that problem.)=0A=
>=0A=
> - t.k.=0A=
>=0A=
>=0A=
> _______________________________________________=0A=
> bitcoin-dev mailing list=0A=
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org=0A=
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev=0A=
>=0A=
>=0A=
-------------- next part --------------=0A=
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...=0A=
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20=
170208/18d9cda5/attachment-0001.html>=0A=
=0A=
------------------------------=0A=
=0A=
_______________________________________________=0A=
bitcoin-dev mailing list=0A=
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org=0A=
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev=0A=
=0A=
=0A=
End of bitcoin-dev Digest, Vol 21, Issue 10=0A=
*******************************************=0A=
|
