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
|
Return-Path: <karra.etc@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CE0F2305
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 21 Aug 2015 12:13:09 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-pa0-f45.google.com (mail-pa0-f45.google.com
[209.85.220.45])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AB9741C3
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 21 Aug 2015 12:13:08 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by pawq9 with SMTP id q9so51787155paw.3
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 21 Aug 2015 05:13:08 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
:cc:content-type;
bh=QJB83aTy+9gemkU0dUkDDWqCw6ZU1qsphaM+HYgFmpA=;
b=x8krMOmA0U5DoR0vuPfPwNOnKBD+Ro6Cg0q3gnJ5nq1e+Vr9kvmXCmDKh7pb8XSx0t
/d/hu/OWKMfGMzXHX3MrFP1m3tgjuBwVz++4Iad/hWPUhhAbNvNlDHMAalVJUuCfqpFk
yKZBkWF4MRFIWyZQ0mdqz6c7QD9wAmaXHKRzE0uhhrotv5/+AWKe50SFxM9zyg8PHS7/
FhS8lu/yOd09lIerC6JMyvCbOK23RjuapFrEugrrtLjIgYVLouIW/M1UByo40LJxDajS
yKugQw/rpsocuPwbaQuP/t3CyUAa96d+0jxlkZPvS/ObHK/l7vn1BrqA5CpR9e2JzNOc
pRUA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.66.156.196 with SMTP id wg4mr16653938pab.65.1440159188415;
Fri, 21 Aug 2015 05:13:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.66.83.7 with HTTP; Fri, 21 Aug 2015 05:13:08 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CABm2gDp0o5DBzuoyZ=SFvnBXTwPYFWhdOqUPkP_M_3koNMVP1g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAED3CWgTOMFgaM6bBfU0Dn-R0NrdrhGAQo34wHEneYkTtB4Opg@mail.gmail.com>
<CAEieSeSw04FYCCa-Df+V6BgJo1RHqPvJWt9t=c-JCC=dnhraWA@mail.gmail.com>
<CABm2gDp0o5DBzuoyZ=SFvnBXTwPYFWhdOqUPkP_M_3koNMVP1g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2015 17:43:08 +0530
Message-ID: <CAFkt3UOzL2eeYq9ntCDdp5so+5G=73W9v0kP98i+80J9DNWn_g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Sriram Karra <karra.etc@gmail.com>
To: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b86f120d87d81051dd130aa
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,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] Dynamically Controlled Bitcoin Block Size Max Cap
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, 21 Aug 2015 12:13:09 -0000
--047d7b86f120d87d81051dd130aa
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 1:01 PM, Jorge Tim=C3=B3n <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> For the 73th time or so this month on this list:
>
> The maximum block size consensus rule limits mining centralization
> (which is currently pretty bad).
>
> But don't worry about not being an authority on the subject: Gavin
> (who has written extensively on the subject) doesn't seem to
> understand this either.
>
If your goal is to get the Miners (who are highly centralised today) to
implement a change in consensus rule that will limit mining centralisation,
guess what public position you will be taking?
--047d7b86f120d87d81051dd130aa
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr">On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 1:01 PM, Jorge Tim=C3=B3n <span di=
r=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" targ=
et=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>></span> wrote:<b=
r><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><blockquote class=
=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padd=
ing-left:1ex"><span class=3D""><br>
</span>For the 73th time or so this month on this list:<br>
<br>
The maximum block size consensus rule limits mining centralization<br>
(which is currently pretty bad).<br>
<br>
But don't worry about not being an authority on the subject: Gavin<br>
(who has written extensively on the subject) doesn't seem to<br>
understand this either.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>If your goal is=
to get the Miners (who are highly centralised today) to implement a change=
in consensus rule that will limit mining centralisation, guess what public=
position you will be taking?<br></div></div></div></div>
--047d7b86f120d87d81051dd130aa--
|
