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
|
Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <mh.in.england@gmail.com>) id 1YqNTm-0007D4-0X
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Thu, 07 May 2015 15:12:50 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.212.171 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.212.171; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com;
helo=mail-wi0-f171.google.com;
Received: from mail-wi0-f171.google.com ([209.85.212.171])
by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1YqNTg-0002CL-BT
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Thu, 07 May 2015 15:12:49 +0000
Received: by wizk4 with SMTP id k4so246835095wiz.1
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Thu, 07 May 2015 08:12:38 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.194.9.161 with SMTP id a1mr8549088wjb.39.1431011558303; Thu,
07 May 2015 08:12:38 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com
Received: by 10.194.90.114 with HTTP; Thu, 7 May 2015 08:12:38 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAPWm=eUFe7dKJCLeNACZ4n9vw0Xj9rHVM_RRLSczGXNU-ShR2w@mail.gmail.com>
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>
<CAPWm=eUFe7dKJCLeNACZ4n9vw0Xj9rHVM_RRLSczGXNU-ShR2w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 7 May 2015 17:12:38 +0200
X-Google-Sender-Auth: 0q1X4gAl7Mc9blDVbpVsxcxlPn4
Message-ID: <CANEZrP1tCda9EbYgYu5QHN8ZgBCtGP7zRiDaXnq-rWU0ZHR9NQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
To: Alex Morcos <morcos@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b5d34fa9a2e5805157f579d
X-Spam-Score: -0.5 (/)
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
(mh.in.england[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
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: 1YqNTg-0002CL-BT
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 15:12:50 -0000
--047d7b5d34fa9a2e5805157f579d
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> What gives Bitcoin value aren't its technical merits but the fact that
> people believe in it.
>
Much of the belief in Bitcoin is that it has a bright future. Certainly the
huge price spikes we've seen were not triggered by equally large spikes in
usage - it's speculation on that future.
I quite agree that if people stop believing in Bitcoin, that will be bad. A
fast way to bring that about will be to deliberately cripple the technology
in order to force people onto something quite different (which probably
won't be payment channel networks).
> I'd argue that if we didn't force through a 20MB fork now, and we ran into
> major network difficulties a year from now and had no other technical
> solutions, that maybe we would get nearly universal agreement
>
I doubt it. The disagreement seems more philosophical than technical. If
Bitcoin fell off a cliff then that'd just be taken as more evidence that
block chains don't work and we should all use some network of payment hubs,
or whatever the fashion of the day is. Or anyone who doesn't want to pay
high fees is unimportant. See all the other justifications Gavin is working
his way through on his blog.
That's why I conclude the opposite - if there is no fork, then people's
confidence in Bitcoin will be seriously damaged. If it's impossible to do
something as trivial as removing a temporary hack Satoshi put in place,
then what about bigger challenges? If the community is really willing to
drive itself off a cliff due to political deadlock, then why bother
building things that use Bitcoin at all?
--047d7b5d34fa9a2e5805157f579d
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><blo=
ckquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #c=
cc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div><span style=3D"font-size:1=
2.8000001907349px">What gives Bitcoin value aren't its technical merits=
but the fact that people believe in it. </span></div></div></blockquote><d=
iv><br></div><div>Much of the belief in Bitcoin is that it has a bright fut=
ure. Certainly the huge price spikes we've seen were not triggered by e=
qually large spikes in usage - it's speculation on that future.</div><d=
iv><br></div><div>I quite agree that if people stop believing in Bitcoin, t=
hat will be bad. A fast way to bring that about will be to deliberately cri=
pple the technology in order to force people onto something quite different=
(which probably won't be payment channel networks).</div><div>=C2=A0</=
div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-lef=
t:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div><span style=3D"fon=
t-size:12.8000001907349px">I'd argue that if we didn't force throug=
h a 20MB fork now, and we ran into major network difficulties a year from n=
ow and had no other technical solutions, that maybe we would get nearly uni=
versal agreement</span></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I doubt=
it. The disagreement seems more philosophical than technical. If Bitcoin f=
ell off a cliff then that'd just be taken as more evidence that block c=
hains don't work and we should all use some network of payment hubs, or=
whatever the fashion of the day is. Or anyone who doesn't want to pay =
high fees is unimportant. See all the other justifications Gavin is working=
his way through on his blog.</div><div><br></div><div>That's why I con=
clude the opposite - if there is no fork, then people's confidence in B=
itcoin will be seriously damaged. If it's impossible to do something as=
trivial as removing a temporary hack Satoshi put in place, then what about=
bigger challenges? If the community is really willing to drive itself off =
a cliff due to political deadlock, then why bother building things that use=
Bitcoin at all?</div><div><br></div><div><br></div></div></div></div>
--047d7b5d34fa9a2e5805157f579d--
|
