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
|
Return-Path: <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9F91C5A5
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 31 Jul 2015 21:30:52 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-wi0-f171.google.com (mail-wi0-f171.google.com
[209.85.212.171])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 07341115
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 31 Jul 2015 21:30:51 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by wicmv11 with SMTP id mv11so72213567wic.0
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 31 Jul 2015 14:30:50 -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:date
:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type;
bh=9YlVF4Ov9/+9YO853LcP9LIXp/6ny8VK4Mv720aktUU=;
b=YhHlBB5AYtyNpt+I8c69uZhMNkI5mc9luzzBg9DxA88zXpI/2eeoDylxlWLaZAIcXi
YHaTt/JJCxjZIqA34zJUEuXo0cdCl9YpgVQ+++d5hMiyfckC2DIiViamJrZ+9EM5hBE9
Ifs2PWa11ifl47JszOayLNdZqdybsuTq2RQGIh2tgSLcSbT9BGDwlXi89AHPoWE+xsh7
3QojqBLj7QkyuOiH/7wRWmPnAu9cfD9KRYvT0PicsbuWXNPnJk0a+dOkrExRqJUgWL58
J5piDpvMxPORqOtkg+WVHWyM+mXS+SSqXXnZqNwosYismVGcng52yIk1kCxNfFrgsSlO
M8dQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkMbWvEtz36Oo3/H9vSqiop1ohEra2WLL7ZP91+gjphMEuEgkieFoDFJDsbVXLBc3FaDoka
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.194.122.97 with SMTP id lr1mr1543983wjb.26.1438378250685;
Fri, 31 Jul 2015 14:30:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.194.95.168 with HTTP; Fri, 31 Jul 2015 14:30:50 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <55BABE17.7050900@bitcoins.info>
References: <1B7F00D3-41AE-44BF-818D-EC4EF279DC11@gmail.com>
<CA+w+GKTfPXkVPaCC+3ZsQv=_DPMHoRwbigS40Testpyq4rZxsw@mail.gmail.com>
<D25BD175-7099-4A6B-89BB-A35E94F555A9@gmail.com>
<CA+w+GKTZV5sgXNU_xoBby1_X6eae=5_vhENmyKY0yxWHcBiU5g@mail.gmail.com>
<37D282C2-EF9C-4B8B-91E8-7D613B381824@phauna.org>
<CAAS2fgSaRqxi3X0J3F05nA-tyRRikY1whkpAOuGJJpFSAR017w@mail.gmail.com>
<COL131-DS222F0D512C6A5B47BF62C2CD8C0@phx.gbl>
<55B94FAD.7040205@mail.bihthai.net>
<COL131-DS95F86B1D5B93CE1275911CD8C0@phx.gbl>
<CALqxMTEUAtNxkYMQwA9g9xH_LiX98yYOooGjUho1T3fMY2J5jQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CAEX2NSc6FXsDLEpRq7YOxQErpBxS7tW8Afk-T9VUyeb2qS2brQ@mail.gmail.com>
<74767203-7F7A-4848-9923-DE1DE60A28B4@gmail.com>
<F7601CF2-2B89-4D11-8B56-8FFF63A4063C@gmail.com>
<25FD9AAD-99F5-4322-AF34-243F75AE82C4@gmail.com>
<55BABE17.7050900@bitcoins.info>
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2015 23:30:50 +0200
Message-ID: <CABm2gDppLdB5SSQrN1TW-EOBogARpgOXQR4F0ZY0Nn7oWGB5EQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
To: Milly Bitcoin <milly@bitcoins.info>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
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 <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Why Satoshi's temporary anti-spam measure isn't
temporary
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, 31 Jul 2015 21:30:52 -0000
On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 2:15 AM, Milly Bitcoin via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> These are the types of things I have been discussing in relation to a
> process:
>
> -A list of metrics
> -A Risk analysis of the baseline system. Bitcoin as it is now.
> -Mitigation strategies for each risk.
> -A set of goals.
> -A Road map for each goal that lists the changes or possible avenues to
> achieve that goal.
>
> Proposed changes would be measured against the same metrics and a risk
> analysis done so it can be compared with the baseline.
>
> For example, the block size debate would be discussed in the context of a
> road map related to a goal of increase scaling. One of the metrics would be
> a decentralization metric. (A framework for a decentralization metric is at
> http://www.hks.harvard.edu/fs/pnorris/Acrobat/stm103%20articles/Schneider_Decentralization.pdf).
> Cost would be one aspect of the decentralization metric.
All this sounds very reasonable and useful.
And if a formal organization owns this "process", that's fine as well.
I still think hardforks need to be uncontroversial (using the vague "I
will know it when I see it" defintion) and no individual or
organization can be an "ultimate decider" or otherwise Bitcoin losses
all it's p2p nature (and this seems the point where you, Milly, and I
disagree).
But metrics and data tend to help when it comes to "I will know it
when I see it" and "evidences".
So, yes, by all means, let's have an imperfect decentralization metric
rather than not having anything to compare proposals. Competing
decentralization metrics can appear later: we need a first one first.
I would add that we should have sets of simulations being used to
calculate some of those metrics, but maybe I'm just going too deep
into details.
|
