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
|
Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <mark@friedenbach.org>) id 1Z4ewU-0002SH-Li
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 16 Jun 2015 00:41:30 +0000
X-ACL-Warn:
Received: from mail-ie0-f177.google.com ([209.85.223.177])
by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1Z4ewQ-0000DT-Bc
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 16 Jun 2015 00:41:30 +0000
Received: by iesa3 with SMTP id a3so3146541ies.2
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Mon, 15 Jun 2015 17:41:21 -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:from:date
:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type;
bh=IJvnpisBujod4PLvRY77AvqprgPMEKDIHpyB9gcHFFI=;
b=SzvqLT/hTebN2nfohfJeGzReb6tVmMXRk5P2z8m7wXiz8YKfBb7xmsBjcwcDmhZTNm
38ZXbdRBbGimrQJ4HbFyRpuxnak7lJIu7FQtLl9z/8HkdQT74O//AMlXOzC5KXyp6J1d
LH6mcxLbVMZHYMgmuuN9tAB82X/fWy/M7R158Ml29Nq7/TH6WbU1mbbH69Q8uRYESQjC
+j7DiTQ91mO156v/kemgZe84HXjq1ykZePYkPRZvprokVNww9bHzer/5Fq8e3YMjnITC
guJho5xgXdFQfTU/TnfaHrdfgHT7d+SOt/lf4qCjJk031/8Kk9ZvAG4uf0hVGife3itR
6C1w==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmUk8uuCmtLqmdD+5JUmyHkC+QQyR6IN16usGxHtlmFILpnfiWpedrNyR+PG/MRj4tWhyMq
X-Received: by 10.50.62.148 with SMTP id y20mr3926025igr.17.1434415280907;
Mon, 15 Jun 2015 17:41:20 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.107.149.20 with HTTP; Mon, 15 Jun 2015 17:41:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Originating-IP: [172.56.17.8]
In-Reply-To: <CACq0ZD5TTJ=dvz+o-ex6vUWAnOtMfD=VE7JaZWXYM1Lo2L_9wA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CALqxMTGBt7MNs5YWf8QzKe+4Fr-uKVimf8=VbytBANEDm=s50g@mail.gmail.com>
<CANEZrP31AEson9DZ=ZU7d4t=DvmGodh1ja6EaZ6xQZ3bFEXeVA@mail.gmail.com>
<CALqxMTFC7zBN9GvHAZLQj4SbXjzkCAM9meSErd3qn7uCoON98Q@mail.gmail.com>
<CANEZrP148U0V7bU-u0tOTk2xWwq5wy-yU-jk805DcU_3cBHtnw@mail.gmail.com>
<CABaSBawXZDcyR96g4hBNAiFRDpTcUJX+bMXyqGeuY5wVm4k1KQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CALx=ga7axVzUvpUd5Fvr=UruzUZWhXqJ7ibCEzjrRC-58gSWjw@mail.gmail.com>
<9834E283-727C-47F7-A3D0-667951727E5F@gmail.com>
<CACq0ZD5TTJ=dvz+o-ex6vUWAnOtMfD=VE7JaZWXYM1Lo2L_9wA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mark Friedenbach <mark@friedenbach.org>
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2015 17:41:00 -0700
Message-ID: <CAOG=w-vFMczkSx+Dv06sX6tLp1vn3a-4g1B8JaGDFs_BDgbc8g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Aaron Voisine <voisine@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bdcab34479266051897d509
X-Spam-Score: 1.0 (+)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
X-Headers-End: 1Z4ewQ-0000DT-Bc
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] questions about bitcoin-XT code fork &
non-consensus hard-fork
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: Tue, 16 Jun 2015 00:41:30 -0000
--047d7bdcab34479266051897d509
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 5:08 PM, Aaron Voisine <voisine@gmail.com> wrote:
> Wasn't the XT hard fork proposed as a last resort, should the bitcoin-core
> maintainers simply refuse to lift the 1Mb limit? No one wants to go that
> route. An alternate hard-fork proposal like BIP100 that gets consensus, or
> a modified version of gavin's that ups the limit to 8Mb instead of 20Mb, or
> hell even some major changes to the non-consunsus code to make it
> adequately handle the situation when blocks fill up, and allow wallet
> software to continue working with a send-and-forget use pattern, any of
> these would be enough to avoid the need for an XT only hard-fork.
>
> So far BIP100 is the only one that seems to actually be getting any sort
> of momentum toward consensus, and it was proposed... 2 days ago? When the
> XT fork was proposed as a last resort, it was when the opponents were (to
> my understanding) suggesting we just let blocks fill up, and hopefully
> things would just work out on their own.
>
We are not reaching consensus about any proposal, Garzik's or otherwise.
--047d7bdcab34479266051897d509
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr">On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 5:08 PM, Aaron Voisine <span dir=
=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:voisine@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">voisine=
@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=
=3D"gmail_quote"><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8=
ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div>Wasn't the XT hard=
fork proposed as a last resort, should the bitcoin-core maintainers simply=
refuse to lift the 1Mb limit? No one wants to go that route. An alternate =
hard-fork proposal like BIP100 that gets consensus, or a modified version o=
f gavin's that ups the limit to 8Mb instead of 20Mb, or hell even some =
major changes to the non-consunsus code to make it adequately handle the si=
tuation when blocks fill up, and allow wallet software to continue working =
with a send-and-forget use pattern, any of these would be enough to avoid t=
he need for an XT only hard-fork.<div><br></div><div>So far BIP100 is the o=
nly one that seems to actually be getting any sort of momentum toward conse=
nsus, and it was proposed... 2 days ago? When the XT fork was proposed as a=
last resort, it was when the opponents were (to my understanding) suggesti=
ng we just let blocks fill up, and hopefully things would just work out on =
their own.</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>We are not reaching =
consensus about any proposal, Garzik's or otherwise. <br></div></div></=
div></div>
--047d7bdcab34479266051897d509--
|
