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
|
Return-Path: <tier.nolan@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E0A0B83D
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 26 Jun 2015 19:03:06 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-qk0-f180.google.com (mail-qk0-f180.google.com
[209.85.220.180])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 83C79108
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 26 Jun 2015 19:03:06 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by qkhu186 with SMTP id u186so59904225qkh.0
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 26 Jun 2015 12:03:05 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:cc
:content-type; bh=LSoA9uSwtYP+dlut6zRswC4ZJsTcdHMaM87vwvmsfR4=;
b=xjl6xUAhHuu71RuFTYvmOlg2frTgdZFEcYRiAE0+uneZ74ZxX0KMQXv0vnH5N8x/cX
QYpIIGOjA+b3SetnBPUH9hOPcfjjXzgtftJWYmPvlkw2Fw6UV/ZEFi/BOWf3NcNLd4RM
gQo0uiK0Wf1PicKQRqXC/60x4Zhs2Lz0mYpPfj8HTEjkscioZMAB8Sm0Oy8IOFuCr9m4
i7dhBy7h7dcZNQGf58ngLxT9lo1Zr6K+0eoLidTfUTGA6Qo2+uojO0hwPrJaLyy0MO1t
49vU8WsjcKv8jfxYKlhWflWC7i8by0Zbg4hZPaXaRSQQHCJuMvpWdTrhZvkxO264ZIkn
95Qg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.140.109.34 with SMTP id k31mr4499069qgf.94.1435345385647;
Fri, 26 Jun 2015 12:03:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.140.85.241 with HTTP; Fri, 26 Jun 2015 12:03:05 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <558D9E49.7000601@gmail.com>
References: <CAPg+sBjOj9eXiDG0F6G54SVKkStF_1HRu2wzGqtFF5X_NAWy4w@mail.gmail.com>
<CADm_Wca+ow4pMzN7SyKjsMdFo0wuUerYYjf5xKs5G_2Q2PzMmA@mail.gmail.com>
<CAPg+sBg=sn7djO_8H16NDg7S7m7_0eTcrgLVofMWQ2ANz+jw9w@mail.gmail.com>
<CADm_WcbQog_UCV=JPHyqTRxKbaGY7jedtHE_D8jJSe_thMg05w@mail.gmail.com>
<558D9E49.7000601@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2015 20:03:05 +0100
Message-ID: <CAE-z3OUZJ2STEMf0yMWTyvcVjFEuh0DfX4mc+XhBsykh7GdOGw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Tier Nolan <tier.nolan@gmail.com>
Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113a7d0ad781af05197063f5
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,MISSING_HEADERS,
RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=no version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] The need for larger blocks
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, 26 Jun 2015 19:03:07 -0000
--001a113a7d0ad781af05197063f5
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 7:47 PM, Patrick Strateman <
patrick.strateman@gmail.com> wrote:
> For a proposed hard fork to reach a level of consensus necessary to be
> safe requires that there be a clear and self evident course of action.
>
Safety increases with more lead-in time. If the reference client was
updated so that the hard fork happened in two years, it would be pretty
safe. Miners would have time to update.
If miners (or the community) objected, it is sort of like a game of chicken.
This is one of the problems with not making decisions in advance, the
resulting hard fork is inherently safer.
--001a113a7d0ad781af05197063f5
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr">On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 7:47 PM, Patrick Strateman <span d=
ir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:patrick.strateman@gmail.com" target=3D"_bl=
ank">patrick.strateman@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class=3D"gma=
il_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" styl=
e=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
=20
=20
=20
<div bgcolor=3D"#FFFFFF" text=3D"#000000">
For a proposed hard fork to reach a level of consensus necessary to
be safe requires that there be a clear and self evident course of
action.<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Safety increases with=
more lead-in time.=C2=A0 If the reference client was updated so that the h=
ard fork happened in two years, it would be pretty safe.=C2=A0 Miners would=
have time to update.<br><br></div><div>If miners (or the community) object=
ed, it is sort of like a game of chicken.<br><br></div><div>This is one of =
the problems with not making decisions in advance, the resulting hard fork =
is inherently safer.<br></div></div></div></div>
--001a113a7d0ad781af05197063f5--
|
