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
|
Return-Path: <Peter_R@gmx.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DB75E91A
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sat, 14 Nov 2015 21:45:32 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.17.21])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 12C27140
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sat, 14 Nov 2015 21:45:31 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [192.168.1.67] ([108.180.183.65]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx102)
with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0M7DVi-1aI1Co3KAo-00x4s5;
Sat, 14 Nov 2015 22:45:29 +0100
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2104\))
From: Peter R <peter_r@gmx.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAPkFh0s-o6BXAEC-s9s1UmFwVfMFQKStoJaM0u2Lct9yiP5QBQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 14 Nov 2015 13:45:25 -0800
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <B2C858C1-B15F-49F1-BF7E-02EA7C3FE474@gmx.com>
References: <CAPkFh0s-o6BXAEC-s9s1UmFwVfMFQKStoJaM0u2Lct9yiP5QBQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: =?utf-8?Q?Emin_G=C3=BCn_Sirer?= <el33th4x0r@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2104)
Sender: Peter_R@gmx.com
X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:XKoLv61+5kmoOIY3bl/USChqHem2Ohop4h3Sc3GK26vqV2gZ+M+
3OgQhlNU14nPeWbunfn5KB8O68GhWI4hMFpOeOOOJHJ4HSsSJLwuXWmGm9PW2fZe7Ho8mKa
LYVkbiurbxbLOsR4jkBPxG9o8RxkSF8XcEuVLrQW5RglB9UIF+Dpok+e5EMis8yM/Wo9K9/
dvFfS3dfCXlx+zfzkl22g==
X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:hW4rCNdEWgc=:0vb/a+9JcVxyyOMlrwOqXn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X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,
RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] How to evaluate block size increase suggestions.
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: Sat, 14 Nov 2015 21:45:33 -0000
> It looks like some specific meta-level criteria would help more at =
this point than new proposals all exploring a different variants of =
block size increase schedules.
I agree. In fact, I=E2=80=99ll go meta on your meta and suggest that we =
should first discuss how Bitcoin should be governed in the first place. =
Should Bitcoin evolve from the =E2=80=9Cbottom up,=E2=80=9D or from the =
=E2=80=9Ctop down=E2=80=9D?
If one=E2=80=99s answer is from the =E2=80=9Ctop-down,=E2=80=9D then the =
meta-level criteria can be endlessly debated, for they all involve some =
sort of tradeoff, they all require some sort of compromise. The =E2=80=9C=
top down=E2=80=9D perspective holds that people might make poor choices =
if given the freedom to easily do so--it holds that the trade-offs must =
be balanced instead by experts. =20
However, if one's answer is from the =E2=80=9Cbottom up,=E2=80=9D then =
the meta-level criteria is very easy: we do what the people wants. We =
allow the people to weigh the tradeoffs and then we watch as consensus =
emerges through a decentralized process, objectively represented by the =
longest proof-of-work chain. =20
Regarding the block size limit debate, at the end of the day it comes =
down to two things:
1. How big of a block will my node accept today?
2. What do I want my node to do if the longest chain includes a block =
larger than the limit I set?
If one concedes that Bitcoin should be governed from the =E2=80=9Cbottom =
up,=E2=80=9D then it is already possible to empower each node operator =
to more easily express his free choice regarding the size of blocks he =
is willing to accept, while simultaneously ensuring that his node tracks =
consensus.
Best regards,
Peter
|
