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
|
Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <gmaxwell@gmail.com>) id 1U5eTT-0006L1-Di
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Wed, 13 Feb 2013 15:42:20 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.215.47 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.215.47; envelope-from=gmaxwell@gmail.com;
helo=mail-la0-f47.google.com;
Received: from mail-la0-f47.google.com ([209.85.215.47])
by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1U5eTO-00022D-08
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Wed, 13 Feb 2013 15:42:19 +0000
Received: by mail-la0-f47.google.com with SMTP id fj20so1281771lab.6
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Wed, 13 Feb 2013 07:42:07 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.112.26.10 with SMTP id h10mr9029109lbg.63.1360770127307;
Wed, 13 Feb 2013 07:42:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.112.96.164 with HTTP; Wed, 13 Feb 2013 07:42:07 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAN1xFdrGiWmn_EaBNMXXZAV38oeqP14YiMzMZQrkA+WL9QEMfA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAN1xFdrX61HsRxsXxXW+i0FzjQkoNVRaDG-2yJNOfYUi5FnsPA@mail.gmail.com>
<CAAS2fgTwjXCGFS-N8a8Ro80ahxXT01dCfqWYOqmwCkdRramaMg@mail.gmail.com>
<CAN1xFdrGiWmn_EaBNMXXZAV38oeqP14YiMzMZQrkA+WL9QEMfA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 07:42:07 -0800
Message-ID: <CAAS2fgR5=nLTBQUBzjZQs91AVw5XSTiqe-KB_T9R9wKfBrOq6Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
To: Raph Frank <raphfrk@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-)
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
(gmaxwell[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
-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: 1U5eTO-00022D-08
Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Incorporating block validation rule
modifications into the block chain
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: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 15:42:20 -0000
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 6:58 AM, Raph Frank <raphfrk@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Bitcoin is not a democracy=E2=80=94 it quite intentionally uses the cons=
ensus
>> mechanism _only_ the one thing that nodes can not autonomously and
>> interdependently validate (the ordering of transactions).
> So, how is max block size to be decided then?
In one sense it already is decided=E2=80=94 there is a protocol rule
implementing a hard maximum, and soft rules for lower targets. If
it's to be changed it would only be by it being obvious to almost
everyone that it should _and_ must be. Since, in the long run,
Bitcoin can't meet its security and decenteralization promises without
blockspace scarcity to drive non-trivial fees and without scaling
limits to keep it decenteralized=E2=80=94 it's not a change that could be m=
ade
more lightly than changing the supply of coin.
I hope that should it become necessary to do so that correct path will
be obvious to everyone, otherwise there is a grave risk of undermining
the justification for the confidence in the immutability of any of the
rules of the system.
|
