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
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
|
Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <21xe14@gmail.com>) id 1YqUrJ-0008Df-2d
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Thu, 07 May 2015 23:05:37 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.212.176 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.212.176; envelope-from=21xe14@gmail.com;
helo=mail-wi0-f176.google.com;
Received: from mail-wi0-f176.google.com ([209.85.212.176])
by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1YqUrH-0006Ep-Ed
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Thu, 07 May 2015 23:05:37 +0000
Received: by wicmx19 with SMTP id mx19so24417637wic.1
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Thu, 07 May 2015 16:05:29 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.208.7 with SMTP id ma7mr953468wic.0.1431039929417; Thu,
07 May 2015 16:05:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.27.6.16 with HTTP; Thu, 7 May 2015 16:05:29 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <554BD91D.6030201@bluematt.me>
References: <554A91BE.6060105@bluematt.me>
<CANEZrP3wGWHdz+ut6pvke5TJJsc1rTFt8sn2KziX35oL5LAsyg@mail.gmail.com>
<CABm2gDpDvk2VsQ+mJ-BoeBKmvu9jBXNujZEFKuCStRNjFL6VOA@mail.gmail.com>
<CANEZrP2zAGCCBhNa4=9yw+A_Dn5o4SQXoPTE_qcJzZ1dFuF2tw@mail.gmail.com>
<CABm2gDqd6iHRUDKZWWTudcC1QkYa+rCuHjz7pMC2K1Db8wpgfA@mail.gmail.com>
<CANEZrP1CU0kB0vXeXUX1L8byaT-Zf2xg+3N+GeNthi_i6bn1qw@mail.gmail.com>
<CABsx9T2Nxvr4fqREMw3_LXftzsxrUAR1+9sVMa8_EpTnH1nN1Q@mail.gmail.com>
<554BA032.4040405@bluematt.me>
<CANEZrP3yM9wsSPNgpOsXDk-DjUy5PW2XuRTvK2AyCNbVJ5hZHw@mail.gmail.com>
<554BB718.6070104@bluematt.me>
<CANEZrP1N-wJNNHU+73FZu_CBvriXn4n+BgG=G1g-dAnEyw4BUQ@mail.gmail.com>
<554BD91D.6030201@bluematt.me>
Date: Thu, 7 May 2015 23:05:29 +0000
Message-ID: <CAFZQHkH1HYNXMNj5vHAFtpeE47jQkqCnHbQ0vCnutep7FwYGkg@mail.gmail.com>
From: 21E14 <21xe14@gmail.com>
To: Matt Corallo <bitcoin-list@bluematt.me>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c383cea7050e051585f20f
X-Spam-Score: -0.3 (/)
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
(21xe14[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
0.2 FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT Envelope-from freemail username ends in
digit (21xe14[at]gmail.com)
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: 1YqUrH-0006Ep-Ed
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Block Size Increase
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, 07 May 2015 23:05:37 -0000
--001a11c383cea7050e051585f20f
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
I am more fazed by PR 5288 and PR 5925 not getting merged in, than by this
thread. So, casting my ballot in favor of the block size increase. Clearly,
we're still rehearsing proper discourse, and that ain't gonna get fixed
here and now.
On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 9:29 PM, Matt Corallo <bitcoin-list@bluematt.me>
wrote:
>
>
> On 05/07/15 19:34, Mike Hearn wrote:
> > The appropriate method of doing any fork, that we seem to have been
> > following for a long time, is to get consensus here and on IRC and on
> > github and *then* go pitch to the general public
> >
> >
> > So your concern is just about the ordering and process of things, and
> > not about the change itself?
>
> No, I'm very concerned about both.
>
> > I have witnessed many arguments in IRC about block sizes over the years.
> > There was another one just a few weeks ago. Pieter left the channel for
> > his own sanity. IRC is not a good medium for arriving at decisions on
> > things - many people can't afford to sit on IRC all day and
> > conversations can be hard to follow. Additionally, they tend to go
> circular.
>
> I agree, thats why this mailing list was created in the first place
> (well, also because bitcointalk is too full of spam, but close enought :))
>
> > That said, I don't know if you can draw a line between the "ins" and
> > "outs" like that. The general public is watching, commenting and
> > deciding no matter what. Might as well deal with that and debate in a
> > format more accessible to all.
>
> Its true, just like its true the general public can opt to run any
> version of software they want. That said, the greater software
> development community has to update /all/ the software across the entire
> ecosystem, and thus provide what amounts to a strong recommendation of
> which course to take. Additionally, though there are issues (eg if there
> was a push to remove the total coin limit) which are purely political,
> and thus which should be up to the greater public to decide, the
> blocksize increase is not that. It is intricately tied to Bitcoin's
> delicate incentive structure, which many of the development community
> are far more farmiliar with than the general Bitcoin public. If there
> were a listserv that was comprised primarily of people on
> #bitcoin-wizards, I might have suggested a discussion there, first, but
> there isnt (as far as I know?).
>
> > If, instead, there had been an intro on the list as "I think we
> should
> > do the blocksize increase soon, what do people think?"
> >
> >
> > There have been many such discussions over time. On bitcointalk. On
> > reddit. On IRC. At developer conferences. Gavin already knew what many
> > of the objections would be, which is why he started answering them.
> >
> > But alright. Let's say he should have started a thread. Thanks for
> > starting it for him.
> >
> > Now, can we get this specific list of things we should do before we're
> > prepared?
>
> Yes....I'm gonna split the topic since this is already far off course
> for that :).
>
> > A specific credible alternative to what? Committing to blocksize
> > increases tomorrow? Yes, doing more research into this and developing
> > software around supporting larger block sizes so people feel
> comfortable
> > doing it in six months.
> >
> >
> > Do you have a specific research suggestion? Gavin has run simulations
> > across the internet with modified full nodes that use 20mb blocks, using
> > real data from the block chain. They seem to suggest it works OK.
> >
> > What software do you have in mind?
>
> Let me answer that in a new thread :).
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> One dashboard for servers and applications across Physical-Virtual-Cloud
> Widest out-of-the-box monitoring support with 50+ applications
> Performance metrics, stats and reports that give you Actionable Insights
> Deep dive visibility with transaction tracing using APM Insight.
> http://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/290420510;117567292;y
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>
--001a11c383cea7050e051585f20f
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr">I am more fazed by PR 5288 and PR 5925 not getting merged =
in, than by this thread. So, casting my ballot in favor of the block size i=
ncrease. Clearly, we're still rehearsing proper discourse, and that ain=
't gonna get fixed here and now.<br></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><b=
r><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 9:29 PM, Matt Corallo <=
span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-list@bluematt.me" target=3D"=
_blank">bitcoin-list@bluematt.me</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=
=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padd=
ing-left:1ex"><span class=3D""><br>
<br>
On 05/07/15 19:34, Mike Hearn wrote:<br>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0The appropriate method of doing any fork, that we s=
eem to have been<br>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0following for a long time, is to get consensus here=
and on IRC and on<br>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0github and *then* go pitch to the general public<br=
>
><br>
><br>
> So your concern is just about the ordering and process of things, and<=
br>
> not about the change itself?<br>
<br>
</span>No, I'm very concerned about both.<br>
<span class=3D""><br>
> I have witnessed many arguments in IRC about block sizes over the year=
s.<br>
> There was another one just a few weeks ago. Pieter left the channel fo=
r<br>
> his own sanity. IRC is not a good medium for arriving at decisions on<=
br>
> things - many people can't afford to sit on IRC all day and<br>
> conversations can be hard to follow. Additionally, they tend to go cir=
cular.<br>
<br>
</span>I agree, thats why this mailing list was created in the first place<=
br>
(well, also because bitcointalk is too full of spam, but close enought :))<=
br>
<span class=3D""><br>
> That said, I don't know if you can draw a line between the "i=
ns" and<br>
> "outs" like that. The general public is watching, commenting=
and<br>
> deciding no matter what. Might as well deal with that and debate in a<=
br>
> format more accessible to all.<br>
<br>
</span>Its true, just like its true the general public can opt to run any<b=
r>
version of software they want. That said, the greater software<br>
development community has to update /all/ the software across the entire<br=
>
ecosystem, and thus provide what amounts to a strong recommendation of<br>
which course to take. Additionally, though there are issues (eg if there<br=
>
was a push to remove the total coin limit) which are purely political,<br>
and thus which should be up to the greater public to decide, the<br>
blocksize increase is not that. It is intricately tied to Bitcoin's<br>
delicate incentive structure, which many of the development community<br>
are far more farmiliar with than the general Bitcoin public. If there<br>
were a listserv that was comprised primarily of people on<br>
#bitcoin-wizards, I might have suggested a discussion there, first, but<br>
there isnt (as far as I know?).<br>
<span class=3D""><br>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0If, instead, there had been an intro on the list as=
"I think we should<br>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0do the blocksize increase soon, what do people thin=
k?"<br>
><br>
><br>
> There have been many such discussions over time. On bitcointalk. On<br=
>
> reddit. On IRC. At developer conferences. Gavin already knew what many=
<br>
> of the objections would be, which is why he started answering them.<br=
>
><br>
> But alright. Let's say he should have started a thread. Thanks for=
<br>
> starting it for him.<br>
><br>
> Now, can we get this specific list of things we should do before we=
9;re<br>
> prepared?<br>
<br>
</span>Yes....I'm gonna split the topic since this is already far off c=
ourse<br>
for that :).<br>
<span class=3D""><br>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0A specific credible alternative to what? Committing=
to blocksize<br>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0increases tomorrow? Yes, doing more research into t=
his and developing<br>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0software around supporting larger block sizes so pe=
ople feel comfortable<br>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0doing it in six months.<br>
><br>
><br>
> Do you have a specific research suggestion? Gavin has run simulations<=
br>
> across the internet with modified full nodes that use 20mb blocks, usi=
ng<br>
> real data from the block chain. They seem to suggest it works OK.<br>
><br>
> What software do you have in mind?<br>
<br>
</span>Let me answer that in a new thread :).<br>
<div class=3D"HOEnZb"><div class=3D"h5"><br>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
---<br>
One dashboard for servers and applications across Physical-Virtual-Cloud<br=
>
Widest out-of-the-box monitoring support with 50+ applications<br>
Performance metrics, stats and reports that give you Actionable Insights<br=
>
Deep dive visibility with transaction tracing using APM Insight.<br>
<a href=3D"http://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/290420510;117567292;y" target=
=3D"_blank">http://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/290420510;117567292;y</a><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Bitcoin-development mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net">Bitcoin-develo=
pment@lists.sourceforge.net</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development=
" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-de=
velopment</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>
--001a11c383cea7050e051585f20f--
|
