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
|
Return-Path: <simon@bitcartel.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2A980AF3
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 26 Jun 2015 22:16:26 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-pa0-f44.google.com (mail-pa0-f44.google.com
[209.85.220.44])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D1CAD199
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 26 Jun 2015 22:16:25 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by paceq1 with SMTP id eq1so74665083pac.3
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 26 Jun 2015 15:16:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to
:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type
:content-transfer-encoding;
bh=uzFuzE0dtPFq/IYmiq7oUHsVQM54lMr8IFmq5Z1IhMw=;
b=CkSbL9/gTPLTZ9N638yDLypNUirQy3MDriO5Uhy3UK9dOqa8BVxDXGCWX9QFZnLhnR
fob7SzK0H4YYuYyIfarjJN8iWo42/YousGrRNGDxsEUqZG2BlPxRWT4i5QolyzVdJOqL
zt/3S0XWhb2f+tdUXHBQhXUqBna81OcwA4UrCVkPSgv86n2kxQqMVITiT2hn0+Qx3qdE
TpCIuAvyMdPOlJsG1NsLnUc2WPxiInSOTyJJBJJqR/dMij4ztHF48liSs/OjhkLkAnYn
03Q1/r/VpyIulpxse1wpWTocIGGIamEtFtxn02g8Fa1TTISbLmBvCwA2BBcVaJZBH/Ih
8mow==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnOcZvwL1/dbZLvClBx5MhiXOtocXU5CmllL7rLI0HeU7qapgoJ/+FVKF2mH38o9BAbiStJ
X-Received: by 10.68.206.68 with SMTP id lm4mr4370479pbc.147.1435356985597;
Fri, 26 Jun 2015 15:16:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2601:645:4101:b600:a1af:41e4:41b8:8a45?
([2601:645:4101:b600:a1af:41e4:41b8:8a45])
by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id s1sm34423879pda.54.2015.06.26.15.16.18
(version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128);
Fri, 26 Jun 2015 15:16:19 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <558DCF2F.5080305@bitcartel.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2015 15:16:15 -0700
From: Simon Liu <simon@bitcartel.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64;
rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>, Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com>
References: <CABsx9T2HegqOBqd1jijk1bZBE6N+NH8x6nfwbaoLBACVf8-WBQ@mail.gmail.com> <20150623192838.GG30235@muck> <CABsx9T2wsc=+seaWs=v5d_kPpC4u-xTnsjuPMO7PYhQN+0-KAQ@mail.gmail.com> <20150623204646.GA18677@muck> <CABsx9T3-CbB0k2aKMqRYseUQ2dfW9ANAuYb2MPAw1S+_bF7_=w@mail.gmail.com>
<20150626192528.GC10387@muck>
In-Reply-To: <20150626192528.GC10387@muck>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,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] Draft BIP : fixed-schedule block size increase
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 22:16:26 -0000
If Bitcoin is a $3bn project where stakeholder interests are to be
safeguarded, or if Bitcoin is to be compared to a civil engineering
project where life and death is at stake, it seems only logical that a
well-defined and well-documented process be introduced to properly
evaluate proposed changes. Although too late for the block size debate,
it seems odd that discussion of such a process is often dismissed out of
hand.
To maintain the current approach of supermajority consensus, based
around ingrained wisdom, personal preference and unwritten rules would
suggest that Bitcoin is still an experiment, in which case perhaps any
decision regarding the block size should be based upon technical merit
alone rather than economic interest.
--Simon
> You're the one proposing a change here; we're evaluating the safety of
that change.
> In civil engineering we have enough experience with disasters to know
> that you can't give into political pressure to do potentially dangerous
> things until the consequences are well understood; hopefully we'll learn
> that in the consensus cryptography space before a big disaster rather
> than after.
|
