path: root/a0/2d2f23cf1d663c060d314244e9b33ef2ec3bd9

Return-Path: <luvb@hotmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
	[172.17.192.35])
	by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4AF23B2F
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Thu, 30 Mar 2017 07:11:26 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from APC01-SG2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com
	(mail-oln040092253080.outbound.protection.outlook.com [40.92.253.80])
	by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B9D8FAF
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Thu, 30 Mar 2017 07:11:24 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=hotmail.com;
	s=selector1; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; 
	bh=1SoTi5R7xv/tobWQEAOHVBxDb540RImq8U5eGFBIvII=;
	b=nh0hFJVslxdHF8DJLdNTFAxvKLLXTb653qECEK402RE5Ezqb8Xa9UoY2I1siqyMfCDyQsXmOqQfSxwJFZ717UGr+jKmvmSN/D4W6pWV+iAvk0ctlz1+vi+YAzofW+onqCUVwbNTruV/4DWXsp61W+WAhov6tm22vt4UEwxtEl5YdNJ1S/+H+ompqIUwCF+DpT90hdA8YVz+tTI//wVbn7SjuRK82LzNP+Z1vjKOHyzQmTzdOiIvHxDxNbVPJ+JuByWaJjMTiwqnRTTKuO2h0HjXQjciJn7f0BbTRgJzJotsnx+KJw2S0TN7z1VjMVSe9dqCGN5s/1NSOK4TonpYIyg==
Received: from PU1APC01FT039.eop-APC01.prod.protection.outlook.com
	(10.152.252.58) by PU1APC01HT185.eop-APC01.prod.protection.outlook.com
	(10.152.252.189) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2,
	cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384_P384) id 15.1.977.7;
	Thu, 30 Mar 2017 07:11:21 +0000
Received: from SINPR04MB1949.apcprd04.prod.outlook.com (10.152.252.60) by
	PU1APC01FT039.mail.protection.outlook.com (10.152.253.127) with
	Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2,
	cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384_P384) id 15.1.1005.5 via
	Frontend Transport; Thu, 30 Mar 2017 07:11:21 +0000
Received: from SINPR04MB1949.apcprd04.prod.outlook.com ([10.141.116.153]) by
	SINPR04MB1949.apcprd04.prod.outlook.com ([10.141.116.153]) with mapi id
	15.01.0991.022; Thu, 30 Mar 2017 07:11:21 +0000
From: Luv Khemani <luvb@hotmail.com>
To: David Vorick <david.vorick@gmail.com>, Jared Lee Richardson
	<jaredr26@gmail.com>, Bitcoin Protocol Discussion
	<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Thread-Topic: [bitcoin-dev] Hard fork proposal from last week's meeting
Thread-Index: AQHSqMNonQ4DjsxFiU+7a8C6k6bCq6GsRI2AgAAb7oCAAGkzLQ==
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2017 07:11:21 +0000
Message-ID: <SINPR04MB1949AB581C6870184445E0C4C2340@SINPR04MB1949.apcprd04.prod.outlook.com>
References: <CAEgR2PEG1UMqY0hzUH4YE_an=qOvQUgfXreSRsoMWfFWxG3Vqg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAFVRnyq9Qgw88RZqenjQTDZHEWeuNCdh12Dq7wCGZdu9ZuEN9w@mail.gmail.com>,
	<CAD1TkXvd4yLHZDAdMi78WwJ_siO1Vt7=DgYiBmP45ffVveuHBg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAD1TkXvd4yLHZDAdMi78WwJ_siO1Vt7=DgYiBmP45ffVveuHBg@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
authentication-results: gmail.com; dkim=none (message not signed)
	header.d=none; gmail.com; dmarc=none action=none header.from=hotmail.com;
x-incomingtopheadermarker: OriginalChecksum:8ED8A085A3E967CC7496685A4320639FBD811C323B1D3B081ABA379CA44F8700;
	UpperCasedChecksum:5D5E927E1F3AC40C2F57F9C39D8B4D17D7345C8AC841F3645FBEF82476A51936;
	SizeAsReceived:8404; Count:42
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-tmn: [it9R7jlWksJ44+trxL+8n5EVA8f8IFwO]
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; PU1APC01HT185;
	5:Ro00q3UWAp7XDON/KAnt3lNwHEocoRWPHacMhLQil6ikdTrTjE0SB90ucBbSUK76hnLS6nNfE/WCvxkfeajNm5fd1I2S5UTwdrBftllEdPWbMmJPomU8ZGqPHyCWhJeAWxGnPKntX7o9rUWWct/Uzg==;
	24:ojehugImnFQWaJdhshY8fiAVDWUWPFI/i3fkWSpbC9X7urn1XR3iJdwB5z4ay9oCivZ/AsO8K6tHhPLmdQRtF+4KUC+Xb2orqIqFgSHGYn4=;
	7:3pKg5UAh1iCsQAHKwEPCEysIT9qB5CkjKU64OvWdScvbn0RJp0ybVoeKop7pctIfIscLvkB849IB87aFccEK4Fsmj04fGfF/r3aQwqGc5aiimC57qP7R8llSfHibcnRchHoWX8RFMHpKb3xC29u70bb+BEpgskdU0tgiJUKQY2M/cIi+/VidpRCYrBWpVt+PafH9iXTbO1nTfZDRhyYwRnyk8ccJZBiMcFKTcQB/Rp8GD+UYkXqepeme+EXARE8EeaO5CloG3RpaC68adOqSqD7yTvgGX0TAsOXU3sd5jHuoEQushnc+2uE9uMn/6p4u
x-incomingheadercount: 42
x-eopattributedmessage: 0
x-forefront-antispam-report: EFV:NLI; SFV:NSPM; SFS:(7070007)(98901004);
	DIR:OUT; SFP:1901; SCL:1; SRVR:PU1APC01HT185;
	H:SINPR04MB1949.apcprd04.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None;
	LANG:en; 
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: e894460f-91a0-4ae9-2749-08d4773bf826
x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:; BCL:0; PCL:0;
	RULEID:(22001)(201702061074)(5061506573)(5061507331)(1603103135)(2017031320274)(2017031322274)(1603101448)(1601125374)(1701031045);
	SRVR:PU1APC01HT185; 
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(444000031);
	SRVR:PU1APC01HT185; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:PU1APC01HT185; 
x-forefront-prvs: 02622CEF0A
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="_000_SINPR04MB1949AB581C6870184445E0C4C2340SINPR04MB1949apcp_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: hotmail.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 30 Mar 2017 07:11:21.4727 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Internet
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 84df9e7f-e9f6-40af-b435-aaaaaaaaaaaa
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: PU1APC01HT185
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
	DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, HTML_MESSAGE,
	RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
	smtp1.linux-foundation.org
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 30 Mar 2017 10:58:27 +0000
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Hard fork proposal from last week's meeting
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol 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: Thu, 30 Mar 2017 07:11:26 -0000

--_000_SINPR04MB1949AB581C6870184445E0C4C2340SINPR04MB1949apcp_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


>> If home users are not running their own full nodes, then home users have=
 to trust and rely on other, more powerful nodes to represent them. Of cour=
se, the more powerful nodes, simply by nature of having more power, are goi=
ng to have different opinions and objectives from the users.

>I think you're conflating mining with node operation here.  Node users onl=
y power is to block the propagation of certain things.  Since miners also h=
ave a node endpoint, they can cut the node users out of the equation by lin=
king with eachother directly - something they already do out of practicalit=
y for propagation.  Node users do not have the power to arbitrate consensus=
, that is why we have blocks and PoW.

You are only looking at technical aspects and missing the political aspect.

Node users decide what a Bitcoin is. It matters not how much hash power is =
behind a inflationary supply chain fork, full nodes protect the user from t=
he change of any properties of Bitcoin which they do not agree with. The ab=
ility to retain this power for users is of prime importance and is arguably=
 what gives Bitcoin most of it's value. Any increase in the cost to run a f=
ull node is an increase in cost to maintain monetary sovereignty. The abili=
ty for a user to run a node is what keeps the miners honest and prevents th=
em from rewriting any of Bitcoin's rules.

If it's still difficult to grasp the above paragraph, ask yourself the foll=
owing questions,
- What makes Bitcoin uncensorable
- What gives confidence that the 21 million limit will be upheld
- What makes transactions irreversible
- If hashpower was king as you make it to be, why havn't miners making up m=
ajority hashrate who want bigger blocks been able to change the blocksize?

The market is not storing 10s of billions of dollars in Bitcoin despite all=
 it's risks because it is useful for everyday transactions, that is a solve=
d problem in every part of the world (Cash/Visa/etc..).

Having said that, i fully empathise with your view that increasing transact=
ion fees might allow competitors to gain marketshare for low value use case=
s. By all means, we should look into ways of solving the problem. But all t=
hese debates around blocksize is a total waste of time. Even if we fork to =
2MB, 5MB, 10MB. It is irrelevant in the larger picture, transaction capacit=
y will still be too low for global usage in the medium-long term. The addit=
ional capacity from blocksize increases are linear improvements with very l=
arge systemic costs compared with the userbase and usage which is growing e=
xponentially. Lightning potentially offers a couple or orders of magnitude =
of scaling and will make blocksize a non-issue for years to come. Even if i=
t fails to live up to the hype, you should not discount the market innovati=
ng solutions when there is money to be made.


--_000_SINPR04MB1949AB581C6870184445E0C4C2340SINPR04MB1949apcp_
Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv=3D"Content-Type" content=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-=
1">
<style type=3D"text/css" style=3D"display:none;"><!-- P {margin-top:0;margi=
n-bottom:0;} --></style>
</head>
<body dir=3D"ltr">
<div id=3D"divtagdefaultwrapper" style=3D"font-size:12pt;color:#000000;font=
-family:Calibri,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;" dir=3D"ltr">
<p><br>
</p>
<div>
<div>
<div dir=3D"ltr" style=3D"color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style=3D"font-size:12=
.8px">&gt;&gt;&nbsp;</span><span style=3D"font-size:12.8px">If home users a=
re not running their own full nodes, then home users have to trust and rely=
 on other, more powerful nodes to represent them. Of
 course, the more powerful nodes, simply by nature of having more power, ar=
e going to have different opinions and objectives from the users.<br>
<br>
&gt;I think you're conflating mining with node operation here.&nbsp; Node u=
sers only power is to block the propagation of certain things.&nbsp; Since =
miners also have a node endpoint, they can cut the node users out of the eq=
uation by linking with eachother directly - something
 they already do out of practicality for propagation.&nbsp; Node users do n=
ot have the power to arbitrate consensus, that is why we have blocks and Po=
W.</span></div>
<div dir=3D"ltr" style=3D"color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style=3D"font-size:12=
.8px"><br>
</span></div>
<div dir=3D"ltr" style=3D"color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style=3D"font-family:=
 &quot;Comic Sans MS&quot;, fantasy, cursive; font-size: 10pt;">You are onl=
y looking at technical aspects and missing the political aspect.</span></di=
v>
<div dir=3D"ltr" style=3D"color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style=3D"font-family:=
 &quot;Comic Sans MS&quot;, fantasy, cursive; font-size: 10pt;"><br>
</span></div>
<div dir=3D"ltr" style=3D"color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style=3D"font-family:=
 &quot;Comic Sans MS&quot;, fantasy, cursive; font-size: 10pt;">Node users =
decide what a Bitcoin is. It matters not how much hash&nbsp;power is behind=
 a inflationary supply chain&nbsp;fork, full nodes protect
 the user from the change of any properties of Bitcoin which they do not ag=
ree with. The ability to retain this power for users is of prime importance=
 and is arguably what gives Bitcoin most of it's value. Any increase in the=
 cost to run a full node is an increase
 in cost to maintain monetary sovereignty. The ability for a user to run a =
node is what keeps the miners honest and prevents them from rewriting any o=
f Bitcoin's rules.</span><br>
</div>
<div dir=3D"ltr" style=3D"color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style=3D"font-family:=
 &quot;Comic Sans MS&quot;, fantasy, cursive; font-size: 10pt;"><br>
</span></div>
<div dir=3D"ltr" style=3D"color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style=3D"font-family:=
 &quot;Comic Sans MS&quot;, fantasy, cursive; font-size: 10pt;">If it's sti=
ll difficult to grasp the above paragraph, ask yourself the following quest=
ions,</span></div>
<div dir=3D"ltr" style=3D"color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style=3D"font-family:=
 &quot;Comic Sans MS&quot;, fantasy, cursive; font-size: 10pt;">- What make=
s Bitcoin uncensorable</span></div>
<div dir=3D"ltr" style=3D"color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style=3D"font-family:=
 &quot;Comic Sans MS&quot;, fantasy, cursive; font-size: 10pt;">- What give=
s confidence that the 21 million limit will be upheld</span></div>
<div dir=3D"ltr" style=3D"color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style=3D"font-family:=
 &quot;Comic Sans MS&quot;, fantasy, cursive; font-size: 10pt;">- What make=
s transactions irreversible</span></div>
<div dir=3D"ltr"><font face=3D"Comic Sans MS, fantasy, cursive"><span style=
=3D"font-size: 10pt;">- If hashpower was king as you make it to be, why
</span><span style=3D"font-size: 13.3333px;">havn't</span><span style=3D"fo=
nt-size: 10pt;">&nbsp;miners making up majority hashrate who want bigger bl=
ocks been able to change the blocksize?</span></font></div>
<div dir=3D"ltr" style=3D"color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br>
</div>
<div dir=3D"ltr" style=3D"color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><font face=3D"Comic Sans MS=
, fantasy, cursive"><span style=3D"font-size: 13.3333px;">The market is not=
 storing 10s of billions of dollars in Bitcoin despite all it's risks&nbsp;=
because it is useful for everyday transactions,
 that is a solved problem in every part of the world (Cash/Visa/etc..).&nbs=
p;</span></font></div>
<div dir=3D"ltr" style=3D"color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><font face=3D"Comic Sans MS=
, fantasy, cursive"><span style=3D"font-size: 13.3333px;"><br>
</span></font></div>
<div dir=3D"ltr" style=3D"color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><font face=3D"Comic Sans MS=
, fantasy, cursive"><span style=3D"font-size: 13.3333px;">Having said that,=
 i fully empathise with your view that increasing transaction fees might al=
low competitors to gain marketshare for
 low value use cases. By all means, we should look into ways of&nbsp;solvin=
g the problem. But all these&nbsp;debates around blocksize is a total waste=
 of time. Even if we fork to 2MB, 5MB, 10MB. It is irrelevant in the larger=
 picture, transaction capacity will still
 be too low for global usage in the medium-long term. The additional capaci=
ty from blocksize increases are linear improvements with very large systemi=
c&nbsp;costs compared with the userbase and usage which is growing exponent=
ially. Lightning potentially offers a
 couple or orders of magnitude of scaling and will make blocksize a non-iss=
ue for years to come. Even if it fails to live up to the hype, you should n=
ot discount the market innovating solutions when there is money to be made.=
</span></font></div>
<div dir=3D"ltr" style=3D"color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>

--_000_SINPR04MB1949AB581C6870184445E0C4C2340SINPR04MB1949apcp_--