From: Ryan J Martin <rjmarti2@millersville.edu>
To: "bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org"
	<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Thread-Topic: [bitcoin-dev] A Modified Version of Luke-jr's Block Size BIP
Thread-Index: AQHSg0wDvjWBZfRzqECU1DRpu5FnAg==
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2017 04:10:15 +0000
Message-ID: <127281C1AA02374F8AAD9EE04FAE878A02154E80BD@STUDMail1.muad.local>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] A Modified Version of Luke-jr's Block Size BIP
Precedence: list

"10% say literally never.  That seems like a significant disenfranchisement=
=0A=
and lack of consensus."=0A=
=0A=
Certainly the poll results should be taken with a grain of salt and not a d=
efinitive answer or measure . =0A=
However if we agree the poll has some worth (or even if not, then lets use =
it as hyptothetical): If we split it into two groups: those okay with a har=
dfork at some point > now, and those never okay with hardfork, that means t=
here is 90% that agree a hardfork is acceptable in the future. That said, w=
hat threshold defines consensus then? 98%? 100%?       =0A=
 =0A=
Personally I think pursuing paths that maximize net social benefit in terms=
 of cost surplus/burden is the best way to go since consensus is such an im=
possible to define, variable, case-by-case thing that doesn't always lead t=
o the best choice.=0A=
=0A=
-Ryan J. MArtin=0A=
 =0A=
=0A=
________________________________________=0A=
From: bitcoin-dev-bounces@lists.linuxfoundation.org [bitcoin-dev-bounces@li=
sts.linuxfoundation.org] on behalf of bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfounda=
tion.org [bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org]=0A=
Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2017 7:00 AM=0A=
To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org=0A=
Subject: bitcoin-dev Digest, Vol 21, Issue 10=0A=
=0A=
Send bitcoin-dev mailing list submissions to=0A=
        bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org=0A=
=0A=
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit=0A=
        https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev=0A=
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to=0A=
        bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org=0A=
=0A=
You can reach the person managing the list at=0A=
        bitcoin-dev-owner@lists.linuxfoundation.org=0A=
=0A=
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific=0A=
than "Re: Contents of bitcoin-dev digest..."=0A=
=0A=
=0A=
Today's Topics:=0A=
=0A=
   1. Re: A Modified Version of Luke-jr's Block Size BIP (alp alp)=0A=
=0A=
=0A=
----------------------------------------------------------------------=0A=
=0A=
Message: 1=0A=
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2017 08:44:52 -0600=0A=
From: alp alp <alp.bitcoin@gmail.com>=0A=
To: "t. khan" <teekhan42@gmail.com>,    Bitcoin Protocol Discussion=0A=
        <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>=0A=
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] A Modified Version of Luke-jr's Block Size=0A=
        BIP=0A=
Message-ID:=0A=
        <CAMBsKS9OS2tA4bG-JG96XNZTiPyuq322Qu=3DfyJcZ1BtVj3TtxQ@mail.gmail.c=
om>=0A=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3D"utf-8"=0A=
=0A=
10% say literally never.  That seems like a significant disenfranchisement=
=0A=
and lack of consensus.=0A=
=0A=
On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 2:25 PM, t. khan via bitcoin-dev <=0A=
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:=0A=
=0A=
> On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 2:53 PM, Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org> wrote:=0A=
>=0A=
>> On Monday, February 06, 2017 6:19:43 PM you wrote:=0A=
>> > >My BIP draft didn't make progress because the community opposes any=
=0A=
>> block=0A=
>> > >size increase hardfork ever.=0A=
>> >=0A=
>> > Luke, how do you know the community opposes that? Specifically, how di=
d=0A=
>> you=0A=
>> > come to this conclusion?=0A=
>>=0A=
>> http://www.strawpoll.me/12228388/r=0A=
>=0A=
>=0A=
> That poll shows 63% of votes want a larger than 1 MB block by this summer=
.=0A=
> How do you go from that to "the community opposes any block increase ever=
"?=0A=
> It shows the exact opposite of that.=0A=
>=0A=
>=0A=
>> > >Your version doesn't address the current block size=0A=
>> > >issues (ie, the blocks being too large).=0A=
>> >=0A=
>> > Why do you think blocks are "too large"? Please cite some evidence. I'=
ve=0A=
>> > asked this before and you ignored it, but an answer would be helpful t=
o=0A=
>> the=0A=
>> > discussion.=0A=
>>=0A=
>> Full node count is far below the safe minimum of 85% of economic activit=
y.=0A=
>>=0A=
>=0A=
> Is this causing a problem now? If so, what?=0A=
>=0A=
>=0A=
>> Typically reasons given for people not using full nodes themselves come=
=0A=
>> down=0A=
>> to the high resource requirements caused by the block size.=0A=
>=0A=
>=0A=
> The reason people stop running nodes is because there's no incentive to=
=0A=
> counteract the resource costs. Attempting to solve this by making blocks=
=0A=
> *smaller* is like curing a disease by killing the patient. (Incentivizing=
=0A=
> full node operation would fix that problem.)=0A=
>=0A=
> - t.k.=0A=
>=0A=
>=0A=
> _______________________________________________=0A=
> bitcoin-dev mailing list=0A=
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org=0A=
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev=0A=
>=0A=
>=0A=
-------------- next part --------------=0A=
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...=0A=
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20=
170208/18d9cda5/attachment-0001.html>=0A=
=0A=
------------------------------=0A=
=0A=
_______________________________________________=0A=
bitcoin-dev mailing list=0A=
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org=0A=
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev=0A=
=0A=
=0A=
End of bitcoin-dev Digest, Vol 21, Issue 10=0A=
*******************************************=0A=