path: root/eb/97b002023e4b2d4806f7701aee47de43271cce

Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193]
	helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
	by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <jgarzik@bitpay.com>) id 1YqNQo-0001QI-OV
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Thu, 07 May 2015 15:09:46 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of bitpay.com
	designates 209.85.214.177 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=209.85.214.177; envelope-from=jgarzik@bitpay.com;
	helo=mail-ob0-f177.google.com; 
Received: from mail-ob0-f177.google.com ([209.85.214.177])
	by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76) id 1YqNQm-0004sq-9D
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Thu, 07 May 2015 15:09:46 +0000
Received: by obfe9 with SMTP id e9so33659377obf.1
	for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
	Thu, 07 May 2015 08:09:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
	d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
	h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date
	:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type;
	bh=FpIQmLBozQhDqTZkHT2kdgRhlq2lueqXNm8cthiRhR0=;
	b=RoBNvR51k6LZlmejWyTJueCbkpUNycbPb6anGoufWbNrou1YiDzXzRSbb0lD9+iDf1
	/GsioIarDqE80wChXsYIFlCfvypJbjjHzFPBal1bUJdngOG0km+gNYlsPeYcyXQ1PCtG
	2hueu68JvkfAYySwdTBhouALXbU7HXEQx51Lrtpj2p1zMGVRHFtGFI3NKPHpKrNU5q+m
	ZxVFx5WEOftkhCNoLP1CJe1MVIjRlTfDARsLlbbuxpjM7om9IzcSH2J7AofuH0m5iKE6
	aXMAKwzXI2lfJKlOJjbpfIQhJayihYrQt3XpS8Jhq4+nMxo73FPeKqxPI8BcK74ymwYO
	bakQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnmzEM9hY7ORtaOx6sqzWvOoOLGkRMUbmqgcQ7+yi+joog9R0qK3Ov8T8FXLq69OE+klEvH
X-Received: by 10.60.92.131 with SMTP id cm3mr3552151oeb.23.1431011378881;
	Thu, 07 May 2015 08:09:38 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.202.108.149 with HTTP; Thu, 7 May 2015 08:09:18 -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>
From: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@bitpay.com>
Date: Thu, 7 May 2015 11:09:18 -0400
Message-ID: <CAJHLa0MB8Hh-7np8EpFMj0jioNpxH_D-C=KZrt_Ri6p_Bovc5w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Alex Morcos <morcos@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b33d812e8888405157f4cba
X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/)
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 SPF_PASS               SPF: sender matches SPF record
	1.0 HTML_MESSAGE           BODY: HTML included in message
	-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: 1YqNQm-0004sq-9D
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 15:09:46 -0000

--047d7b33d812e8888405157f4cba
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

100% agree, RE hard forks should be hard.

However, it is the paradox of growth, morale and adoption that bitcoin
might never reach the point where it is saturated & expensive to the point
where larger blocks are demanded by 95%+...  simply because people and
companies chose not to adopt bitcoin in the first place due to an unmoving,
[perceived | real] scalability roadblock.


On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 11:04 AM, Alex Morcos <morcos@gmail.com> wrote:

> That strikes me as a dangerous path forward.
>
> I don't actually think there is anything wrong with this: "everybody
> eventually gets tired of arguing angels-dancing-on-the-head-of-a-pin, and
> we're left with the status quo"
>
> What gives Bitcoin value aren't its technical merits but the fact that
> people believe in it.   The biggest risk here isn't that 20MB blocks will
> be bad or that 1MB blocks will be bad, but that by forcing a hard fork that
> isn't nearly universally agreed upon, we will be damaging that belief.   If
> I strongly believed some hard fork would be better for Bitcoin, say
> permanent inflation of 1% a year to fund mining, and I managed to convince
> 80% of users, miners, businesses and developers to go along with me, I
> would still vote against doing it.  Because that's not nearly universal
> agreement, and it changes what people chose to believe in without their
> consent. Forks should be hard, very hard.  And both sides should recognize
> that belief in the value of Bitcoin might be a fragile thing.   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, and the businesses and
> users that were driven away by the unusable system would be a short term
> loss in value considerably smaller than the impairment we risk by forcing a
> change.
>
>
>
> On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 10:52 AM, Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> For reference: the blog post that (re)-started this debate, and which
>> links to individual issues, is here:
>>   http://gavinandresen.ninja/time-to-roll-out-bigger-blocks
>>
>> In it, I asked people to email me objections I might have missed. I would
>> still appreciate it if people do that; it is impossible to keep up with
>> this mailing list, /r/bitcoin posts and comments, and #bitcoin-wizards and
>> also have time to respond thoughtfully to the objections raised.
>>
>> I would very much like to find some concrete course of action that we can
>> come to consensus on. Some compromise so we can tell entrepreneurs "THIS is
>> how much transaction volume the main Bitcoin blockchain will be able to
>> support over the next eleven years."
>>
>> I've been pretty clear on what I think is a reasonable compromise (a
>> one-time increase scheduled for early next year), and I have tried to
>> explain why I think it it is the right set of tradeoffs.
>>
>> There ARE tradeoffs here, and the hard question is what process do we use
>> to decide those tradeoffs?  How do we come to consensus? Is it worth my
>> time to spend hours responding thoughtfully to every new objection raised
>> here, or will the same thing happen that happened last year and the year
>> before-- everybody eventually gets tired of arguing
>> angels-dancing-on-the-head-of-a-pin, and we're left with the status quo?
>>
>> I AM considering contributing some version of the bigger blocksize-limit
>> hard-fork patch to the Bitcoin-Xt fork (probably  "target a hobbyist with a
>> fast Internet connection, and assume Nelson's law to increase over time),
>> and then encouraging merchants and exchanges and web wallets and
>> individuals who think it strikes a reasonable balance to run it.
>>
>> And then, assuming it became a super-majority of nodes on the network,
>> encourage miners to roll out a soft-fork to start producing bigger blocks
>> and eventually trigger the hard fork.
>>
>> Because ultimately consensus comes down to what software people choose to
>> run.
>>
>> --
>> --
>> Gavin Andresen
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> One dashboard for servers and applications across Physical-Virtual-Cloud
>> Widest out-of-the-box monitoring support with 50+ applications
>> Performance metrics, stats and reports that give you Actionable Insights
>> Deep dive visibility with transaction tracing using APM Insight.
>> http://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/290420510;117567292;y
>> _______________________________________________
>> Bitcoin-development mailing list
>> Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>>
>>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> One dashboard for servers and applications across Physical-Virtual-Cloud
> Widest out-of-the-box monitoring support with 50+ applications
> Performance metrics, stats and reports that give you Actionable Insights
> Deep dive visibility with transaction tracing using APM Insight.
> http://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/290420510;117567292;y
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>
>


-- 
Jeff Garzik
Bitcoin core developer and open source evangelist
BitPay, Inc.      https://bitpay.com/

--047d7b33d812e8888405157f4cba
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div>100% agree, RE hard forks should be hard.<br><br></di=
v>However, it is the paradox of growth, morale and adoption that bitcoin mi=
ght never reach the point where it is saturated &amp; expensive to the poin=
t where larger blocks are demanded by 95%+...=C2=A0 simply because people a=
nd companies chose not to adopt bitcoin in the first place due to an unmovi=
ng, [perceived | real] scalability roadblock.<br><br></div><div class=3D"gm=
ail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 11:04 AM, =
Alex Morcos <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:morcos@gmail.com" targe=
t=3D"_blank">morcos@gmail.com</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D=
"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding=
-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr">That strikes me as a dangerous path forward.<di=
v><br></div><div>I don&#39;t actually think there is anything wrong with th=
is: &quot;<span style=3D"font-size:12.8000001907349px">everybody eventually=
 gets tired of arguing angels-dancing-on-the-head-of-</span><span style=3D"=
font-size:12.8000001907349px">a-pin, and we&#39;re left with the status quo=
&quot;</span></div><div><span style=3D"font-size:12.8000001907349px"><br></=
span></div><div><span style=3D"font-size:12.8000001907349px">What gives Bit=
coin value aren&#39;t its technical merits but the fact that people believe=
 in it. =C2=A0 The biggest risk here isn&#39;t that 20MB blocks will be bad=
 or that 1MB blocks will be bad, but that by forcing a hard fork that isn&#=
39;t nearly universally agreed upon, we will be damaging that belief. =C2=
=A0 If I strongly believed some hard fork would be better for Bitcoin, say =
permanent inflation of 1% a year to fund mining, and I managed to convince =
80% of users, miners, businesses and developers to go along with me, I woul=
d still vote against doing it.=C2=A0 Because that&#39;s not nearly universa=
l agreement, and it changes what people chose to believe in without their c=
onsent. Forks should be hard, very hard.=C2=A0 And both sides should recogn=
ize that belief in the value of Bitcoin might be a fragile thing. =C2=A0 I&=
#39;d argue that if we didn&#39;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, and the bus=
inesses and users that were driven away by the unusable system would be a s=
hort term loss in value considerably smaller than the impairment we risk by=
 forcing a change.</span></div><div><span style=3D"font-size:12.80000019073=
49px"><br></span></div><div><span style=3D"font-size:12.8000001907349px"><b=
r></span></div></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quo=
te"><div><div class=3D"h5">On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 10:52 AM, Gavin Andresen =
<span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:gavinandresen@gmail.com" target=3D"=
_blank">gavinandresen@gmail.com</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br></div></div><block=
quote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc=
 solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><div class=3D"h5"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=
=3D"gmail_extra">For reference: the blog post that (re)-started this debate=
, and which links to individual issues, is here:</div><div class=3D"gmail_e=
xtra">=C2=A0=C2=A0<a href=3D"http://gavinandresen.ninja/time-to-roll-out-bi=
gger-blocks" target=3D"_blank">http://gavinandresen.ninja/time-to-roll-out-=
bigger-blocks</a></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br></div><div class=3D"g=
mail_extra">In it, I asked people to email me objections I might have misse=
d. I would still appreciate it if people do that; it is impossible to keep =
up with this mailing list, /r/bitcoin posts and comments, and #bitcoin-wiza=
rds and also have time to respond thoughtfully to the objections raised.</d=
iv><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra">I would =
very much like to find some concrete course of action that we can come to c=
onsensus on. Some compromise so we can tell entrepreneurs &quot;THIS is how=
 much transaction volume the main Bitcoin blockchain will be able to suppor=
t over the next eleven years.&quot;<br><br>I&#39;ve been pretty clear on wh=
at I think is a reasonable compromise (a one-time increase scheduled for ea=
rly next year), and I have tried to explain why I think it it is the right =
set of tradeoffs.</div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br></div><div class=3D"g=
mail_extra">There ARE tradeoffs here, and the hard question is what process=
 do we use to decide those tradeoffs?=C2=A0 How do we come to consensus? Is=
 it worth my time to spend hours responding thoughtfully to every new objec=
tion raised here, or will the same thing happen that happened last year and=
 the year before-- everybody eventually gets tired of arguing angels-dancin=
g-on-the-head-of-a-pin, and we&#39;re left with the status quo?</div><div c=
lass=3D"gmail_extra"><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra">I AM considering =
contributing some version of the bigger blocksize-limit hard-fork patch to =
the Bitcoin-Xt fork (probably =C2=A0&quot;target a hobbyist with a fast Int=
ernet connection, and assume Nelson&#39;s law to increase over time), and t=
hen encouraging merchants and exchanges and web wallets and individuals who=
 think it strikes a reasonable balance to run it.</div><div class=3D"gmail_=
extra"><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra">And then, assuming it became a =
super-majority of nodes on the network, encourage miners to roll out a soft=
-fork to start producing bigger blocks and eventually trigger the hard fork=
.</div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra">Beca=
use ultimately consensus comes down to what software people choose to run.<=
/div><span><font color=3D"#888888"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div><br></di=
v>-- <br><div>--<br>Gavin Andresen<br></div><div><br></div>
</div></font></span></div>
<br></div></div><span class=3D"">------------------------------------------=
------------------------------------<br>
One dashboard for servers and applications across Physical-Virtual-Cloud<br=
>
Widest out-of-the-box monitoring support with 50+ applications<br>
Performance metrics, stats and reports that give you Actionable Insights<br=
>
Deep dive visibility with transaction tracing using APM Insight.<br>
<a href=3D"http://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/290420510;117567292;y" target=
=3D"_blank">http://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/290420510;117567292;y</a><br>=
_______________________________________________<br>
Bitcoin-development mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net" target=3D"_bla=
nk">Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development=
" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-de=
velopment</a><br>
<br></span></blockquote></div><br></div>
<br>-----------------------------------------------------------------------=
-------<br>
One dashboard for servers and applications across Physical-Virtual-Cloud<br=
>
Widest out-of-the-box monitoring support with 50+ applications<br>
Performance metrics, stats and reports that give you Actionable Insights<br=
>
Deep dive visibility with transaction tracing using APM Insight.<br>
<a href=3D"http://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/290420510;117567292;y" target=
=3D"_blank">http://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/290420510;117567292;y</a><br>=
_______________________________________________<br>
Bitcoin-development mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net">Bitcoin-develo=
pment@lists.sourceforge.net</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development=
" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-de=
velopment</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br><br clear=3D"all"><br>-- <br><div class=3D"gmail=
_signature">Jeff Garzik<br>Bitcoin core developer and open source evangelis=
t<br>BitPay, Inc. =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0<a href=3D"https://bitpay.com/" targe=
t=3D"_blank">https://bitpay.com/</a></div>
</div>

--047d7b33d812e8888405157f4cba--