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
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
|
Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <adam@cypherspace.org>) id 1Z4YuW-0007Qr-R9
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Mon, 15 Jun 2015 18:15:04 +0000
X-ACL-Warn:
Received: from mout.perfora.net ([74.208.4.196])
by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256)
(Exim 4.76) id 1Z4YuV-0007Ys-Gt
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Mon, 15 Jun 2015 18:15:04 +0000
Received: from mail-qk0-f173.google.com ([209.85.220.173]) by
mrelay.perfora.net (mreueus002) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id
0M8gIX-1ZH7op3gwt-00wAGB for
<bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Mon, 15 Jun 2015 20:14:57 +0200
Received: by qkfe185 with SMTP id e185so17613620qkf.3
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Mon, 15 Jun 2015 11:14:56 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.55.40.214 with SMTP id o83mr18329132qko.106.1434392096361;
Mon, 15 Jun 2015 11:14:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.96.20.164 with HTTP; Mon, 15 Jun 2015 11:14:56 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <COL131-DS5331AE0C03A2BF6E0553ECDB80@phx.gbl>
References: <CALqxMTHrnSS9MGgKO-5+=fVhiOOvk12Recs11S0PcSUxQT1wdQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CANEZrP1nx9rNf1q-nubP77U8RMABuLtmEB_P7UpY2zyFf-Ns-w@mail.gmail.com>
<CALqxMTENbj+E7ypJASrM1r04eW3kYe+afwy+Rt3i9ubeT-=2mA@mail.gmail.com>
<CANEZrP0Z_EOmVgbvVmYDvegm6jfd1cKB52acXHocjRuM-qGEog@mail.gmail.com>
<CAPg+sBgc0i-XsN=g0V4Y0bko-Xb1AT5x=UWDa+opL3eFbBmJfA@mail.gmail.com>
<CANEZrP0eGDTafK+ZUBNcQBOe2JU_PqZVXMt0Ds-b8Ley7kbGrA@mail.gmail.com>
<CAPg+sBiPhhrBh8f3QxJLtoysfywtVFSo2RH0WXVR+vpX9z6+HQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CANEZrP10gn+969d-oe-8Em9ipe4DOP9q0WkNtL6u-6V5aphkPQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CAFBxzAAExA-aE+8o-+HGQtnuwWuWpkt8Lbgxvh7hT64XkMKOPg@mail.gmail.com>
<COL131-DS5331AE0C03A2BF6E0553ECDB80@phx.gbl>
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2015 20:14:56 +0200
Message-ID: <CALqxMTF2T0Wgt15bmjkpMK199vhwH+ufYw+LJU7AEzx4X7dykQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Adam Back <adam@cypherspace.org>
To: "Raystonn ." <raystonn@hotmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:29VfcbYyXYuSVQ5YeAPRf1qaA+788+YQ0v8vFD0m+lsKykg80cR
r9zzJgy1Fi02O1rJyOYaT81+nKQqdZ0fV3xHpT/t7ipuLOE+6t9wFSF74Jdxig1S3jBdLaH
NikDRU3cx6Rsk5SgmxblFZ/MeZWy3Cqz8IN/G4RybPlA4vCjdJwtQL7mWWF+IWTNbRz+PCV
l9L+nsQoYO6OcX9B/B6DQ==
X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
-0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/,
no trust [74.208.4.196 listed in list.dnswl.org]
-0.0 SPF_HELO_PASS SPF: HELO matches SPF record
0.0 AWL AWL: Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address
X-Headers-End: 1Z4YuV-0007Ys-Gt
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] comments on BIP 100
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: Mon, 15 Jun 2015 18:15:04 -0000
I think he's more talking about like extension-blocks, however they
are actually soft-forkable even (and keep the 21m coins obviously)
See See https://www.mail-archive.com/bitcoin-development%40lists.sourceforge.net/msg07937.html
and Tier Nolan tech detail
https://www.mail-archive.com/bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net/msg07927.html
Discussion / claimed properties on
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/39kqzs/how_about_a_softfork_optin_blocksize_increase/
Adam
On 15 June 2015 at 19:53, Raystonn . <raystonn@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> The solution is to hard-fork and merge-mine. This way, both can live, and
>> mining power is not divided.
>
> No, this would essentially be blessing an increase to 42M bitcoins, half on
> each chain. You could expect a severe market price correction if this were
> to happen.
>
> From: Rebroad (sourceforge)
> Sent: Monday, June 15, 2015 4:16 AM
> Cc: Bitcoin Dev
> Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] comments on BIP 100
>
> My understanding of this debate is that there are some people who want to
> keep Bitcoin at 1MB block limit, and there are some who want to increase it.
>
> I for one am curious to see how 1MB limited bitcoin evolves, and I believe
> we can all have a chance to see this AND hard-fork bitcoin to remove the
> block size restriction.
>
> To remove the 1MB limit required a hard fork. This is not disputed. It's
> what we do with the original (1MB limit) bitcoin that concerns me (and
> other's I am sure).
>
> What I would like to see is both being allowed to live. Harry Potter and
> Voldermort! (Except neither are evil!)
>
> The solution is to hard-fork and merge-mine. This way, both can live, and
> mining power is not divided.
>
> Dogecoin recently hardforked and this hardfork also involved switching to
> merge-mining, so it's been done successfully.
>
> So, simply, bitcoin as it is doesn't need to actually fork, but instead, at
> a certain block size, a forked bitcoin with the blocksize lmit removed will
> start to be merge-mined alongside bitcoin. Miners can be ready for this.
> Wallets can be ready for this - in fact, for most wallets and merchants they
> will possibly want to default to the bigger blocksize fork since this caters
> for more transactions per block.
>
> We still don't know how removing the block limit will pan out and what other
> problems with scalability will arise in the future, so by preserving the
> original bitcoin, we keep diversity, and people won't feel their investments
> in bitcoin are being unnecessarily put at risk (as their investments will
> stay in both the new and the old bitcoin).
>
> The bitcoin core developers can implement a patch like the one recently used
> for dogecoin, to allow the chain to fork at a set point, where at which
> point, bitcoins will be split into the new and the old. Branding will be an
> important issue here I think, so that there is as little confusion as
> possible. I think this is a small price to pay in return for not killing the
> original bitcoin (even if it's true that Satoshi did intend to remove the
> 1MB limit at some point).
>
> If I'm missing something obvious please let me know.
>
> On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 1:50 PM, Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> The fact that using a centralized service is easier isn't a good reason
>>> IMHO. It disregards the long-term, and introduces systemic risk.
>>
>>
>> Well sure, that's easy for you to say, but you have a salary :) Other
>> developers may find the incremental benefits of decentralisation low vs
>> adding additional features, for instance, and who is to say they are wrong?
>>
>>>
>>> But in cases where using a decentralized approach doesn't *add* anything,
>>> I cannot reasonably promote it, and that's why I was against getutxos in the
>>> P2P protocol.
>>
>>
>> It does add something though! It means, amongst other things, I can switch
>> of all my servers, walk away for good, discard this Mike Hearn pseudonym I
>> invented for Bitcoin and the app will still work :) Surely that is an
>> important part of being decentralised?
>>
>> It also means that as the underlying protocol evolves over time, getutxos
>> can evolve along side it. P2P protocol gets encrypted/authenticated? Great,
>> one more additional bit of security. If one day miners commit to UTXO sets,
>> great, one more additional bit of security. When we start including input
>> values in the signature hash, great ... one more step up in security.
>>
>> Anyway, I didn't really want to reopen this debate. I just point out that
>> third party services are quite happy to provide whatever developers need to
>> build great apps, even if doing so fails to meet some kind of perfect
>> cryptographic ideal. And that's why they're winning devs.
>>
>> Now back to your regularly scheduled block size debates ...
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Bitcoin-development mailing list
>> Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>>
>
>
> ________________________________
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> ________________________________
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>
|
