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
|
Return-Path: <pete@petertodd.org>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7210F8E6
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 21 Aug 2015 09:30:19 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from outmail148102.authsmtp.net (outmail148102.authsmtp.net
[62.13.148.102])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D36F6161
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 21 Aug 2015 09:30:18 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-c235.authsmtp.com (mail-c235.authsmtp.com [62.13.128.235])
by punt16.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id t7L9UG7m031679;
Fri, 21 Aug 2015 10:30:16 +0100 (BST)
Received: from [25.160.234.125] ([24.114.37.247]) (authenticated bits=0)
by mail.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id t7L9U7EE034877
(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO);
Fri, 21 Aug 2015 10:30:11 +0100 (BST)
In-Reply-To: <CAAS2fgR4bsJtC99-fK1L+FsQT7vOfOpz9FOVqvAnqbpkaRJHLQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+1nnrk1EWd7rhwj91p1rqgGVFgOT4UYq=+Nmq41sHJYmy7YYA@mail.gmail.com>
<CAAS2fgR4bsJtC99-fK1L+FsQT7vOfOpz9FOVqvAnqbpkaRJHLQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=UTF-8
From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2015 09:29:25 +0000
To: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>,
Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>,
Nicolas Dorier <nicolas.dorier@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BE291934-F40A-4163-834C-6B3FFBD7C4E0@petertodd.org>
X-Server-Quench: 3a9bf1bd-47e7-11e5-b398-002590a15da7
X-AuthReport-Spam: If SPAM / abuse - report it at:
http://www.authsmtp.com/abuse
X-AuthRoute: OCd2Yg0TA1ZNQRgX IjsJECJaVQIpKltL GxAVKBZePFsRUQkR
bgdMdAMUGUATAgsB AmMbWlReU117WGY7 aQ5PbARZfElJQQdu
V1dNRFdNFUssBmAI YxlrJxlxcw1BfzBx ZUJiWj5YDU0oI0cv
FlNQEjgBeGZhPWUC AkNRfx5UcAFPdx8U a1UrBXRDAzANdhEy
HhM4ODE3eDlSNhEd aQYXIBo+TFgQVmx0 TBkEVSQoAAUeRywp
IlQ3LUMGVFoRNVg9 MUc6EVsSNAIOQgRa GwlnIRdCb14HDzYr
DBgSQkMUCzxBTG8L agAA
X-Authentic-SMTP: 61633532353630.1023:706
X-AuthFastPath: 0 (Was 255)
X-AuthSMTP-Origin: 24.114.37.247/465
X-AuthVirus-Status: No virus detected - but ensure you scan with your own
anti-virus system.
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] Core Devs : can you share your thoughts about all
BIPs on this website ?
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 09:30:19 -0000
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512
On 20 August 2015 21:45:23 GMT-07:00, Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>I think this is a bit well, sad, at the moment-- a basic principle in
>sound decision making is that one should try to withhold judgement
>until after the analysis and options are laid out to avoid prematurely
>laying down "battle lines" which then they're socially and politically
>committed to a particular answer.
>
>
>There are several other BIPs in the works right now that aren't out
>there yet, as well (as presumably) new insight from the workshop. It
>would be a shame if these things would be for naught because of being
>decided prematurely.
I'll second that, which is why I've mostly not commented on whether or not particular proposals are good ideas, except in the case where they're obviously broken due to reasons other than the blocksize itself. For instance both of Garzik's proposals and Andresen's BIP101 have serious flaws regardless of your thoughts on the blocksize, which is why I've commented on them. Wuille's OTOH is implemented well, which is why I have not commented about it.
What might be valuable is to ask devs to explain what their threat models are, what should be at the root of their thinking about the blocksize.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iQE9BAEBCgAnIBxQZXRlciBUb2RkIDxwZXRlQHBldGVydG9kZC5vcmc+BQJV1u9o
AAoJEMCF8hzn9Lncz4MH/0ZvaS+XK4+kVsgvdO0Mx8Axi8lesQoOSNafY1O8F4Tx
QQcIWYk+QgST0wBOooqIkivlWUhXUUc0A22VvYJ2gOt+KCWCscXkOnPrHWMA2f80
4KBEbLyFd+eaKQnCXoWX6SlDiYrNhyIySwAAvZyJ6IxTliUljuuk4Cc+K7pnVKu2
tfaRXtoal3IzyVb/rxUafgRoCaR2QdkYfr+xwkeF9AjqYFUKL+p5zENV97cbLsiF
/Rxtpe0A9RSClc+VX0yyjFAIIUfmFDWdC7+wNv8YBvHssE0lndPByxWTNVHnHmCk
44XfrsSL0LAqPIqcxyK0hnUSUgKPo0c2chd9mlXHpYE=
=eHHo
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
|
