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
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
|
Return-Path: <andrew.johnson83@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9697EBA9
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 8 Feb 2017 15:51:26 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-vk0-f45.google.com (mail-vk0-f45.google.com
[209.85.213.45])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F061B19B
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 8 Feb 2017 15:51:25 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-vk0-f45.google.com with SMTP id r136so103669949vke.1
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 08 Feb 2017 07:51:25 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025;
h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to
:cc; bh=VvmEHfs3lAQe00J2Qmk9m2jBZLB7IWJoGkWiCT7Bj7A=;
b=f7uVmL21cS7HLKeDiLNpUJJiv4e/9ktgjp1udN4Um/nbFT80arIR1Mte3aG/f91A4S
MTv3o0PNKa2a3F/w60bTNM9bi/n89cuZ0NR9+FeVOScctmOTghLRLbT3o0Zc7Gz6b/l5
kXPU5+KJ2y5s+luYK0H+DQsdRpQjrjNPnuqXhMidOpz5Se1PfTbDeLgHuQ5gej5uPl0q
RcCDwJgjSWdxYfAM5343lnRHnfJWgcZf7EvCDzeOWKGgw5XYD4u+YDySwWmLUxRthBfG
IsZmDpyxqcI6sC2vcaktyegf92XSEL6AsF+GEmOMLRzUZObcxxwfvvrxhpB6vdF7XSB9
1OYw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20161025;
h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date
:message-id:subject:to:cc;
bh=VvmEHfs3lAQe00J2Qmk9m2jBZLB7IWJoGkWiCT7Bj7A=;
b=fupss2xSvwwLBAE9xCzNUHSIs1TNN2Tq1GA8MrTzQG2qYOSXTCeTmVD+JzBK5wTQMg
bKq8ig8s9KrlE24wF8YJ5kud533k9RftQ8NNft+jMcWGo8aiYGQV32jdxL3vmTeWuKI/
9d2JMtq4DhzeUKtyYPbT3bx473Rw2yME093Sp/qcK1jhKNuUdcgWgxniQK3AEqRPUpuc
Q0wBLGibtMczuP4d4v1pZVUrr6sljUTCnwYtMh0LVypLIkCAjzEeazUcgRO/0q3seYJF
/K2YtSRpxrA+dyTeixonDKTTWHtn4pZ6ET4V8ujD/zx0S9lKxBn4sIlXE04xb1NZ+j2X
Ydgg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39mgAPynSUynX9JBcy2PJOjh3UfVMJjmKS1RrH2L3Wz6eEZUxzgbEI8Udac7fVKlbt4KkaXo7mImHp06jA==
X-Received: by 10.31.218.68 with SMTP id r65mr10351786vkg.27.1486569084992;
Wed, 08 Feb 2017 07:51:24 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.103.152.19 with HTTP; Wed, 8 Feb 2017 07:51:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.103.152.19 with HTTP; Wed, 8 Feb 2017 07:51:24 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAMBsKS9OS2tA4bG-JG96XNZTiPyuq322Qu=fyJcZ1BtVj3TtxQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <ea63ed5a-4280-c063-4984-5bc8a4b2aafa@gmail.com>
<201702052302.29599.luke@dashjr.org>
<CAGCNRJrNRb4Eo5T8+KsKnazOCm15g89RFLtRW07k1KjN6TpTDw@mail.gmail.com>
<201702061953.40774.luke@dashjr.org>
<CAGCNRJo3zM2kYePPw-=JpMQWtn_M1Eg=SpShC_z-d-_Nv6KqcQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CAMBsKS9OS2tA4bG-JG96XNZTiPyuq322Qu=fyJcZ1BtVj3TtxQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Andrew Johnson <andrew.johnson83@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2017 09:51:24 -0600
Message-ID: <CAAy62_LcpgXss9hMTG_kwoGbuTOmfpmEc-awi5gNybq0fYErfQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: alp alp <alp.bitcoin@gmail.com>,
Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c07b01c3ec663054806d6f8
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT,FREEMAIL_FROM,
HTML_MESSAGE, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,
RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM autolearn=no version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 10 Feb 2017 10:23:41 +0000
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] A Modified Version of Luke-jr's Block Size BIP
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: Wed, 08 Feb 2017 15:51:26 -0000
--94eb2c07b01c3ec663054806d6f8
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
You're never going to reach 100% agreement, and stifling the network
literally forever to please a tiny minority is daft.
On Feb 8, 2017 8:52 AM, "alp alp via bitcoin-dev" <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
10% say literally never. That seems like a significant disenfranchisement
and lack of consensus.
On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 2:25 PM, t. khan via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.
linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 2:53 PM, Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org> wrote:
>
>> On Monday, February 06, 2017 6:19:43 PM you wrote:
>> > >My BIP draft didn't make progress because the community opposes any
>> block
>> > >size increase hardfork ever.
>> >
>> > Luke, how do you know the community opposes that? Specifically, how did
>> you
>> > come to this conclusion?
>>
>> http://www.strawpoll.me/12228388/r
>
>
> That poll shows 63% of votes want a larger than 1 MB block by this summer.
> How do you go from that to "the community opposes any block increase ever"?
> It shows the exact opposite of that.
>
>
>> > >Your version doesn't address the current block size
>> > >issues (ie, the blocks being too large).
>> >
>> > Why do you think blocks are "too large"? Please cite some evidence. I've
>> > asked this before and you ignored it, but an answer would be helpful to
>> the
>> > discussion.
>>
>> Full node count is far below the safe minimum of 85% of economic activity.
>>
>
> Is this causing a problem now? If so, what?
>
>
>> Typically reasons given for people not using full nodes themselves come
>> down
>> to the high resource requirements caused by the block size.
>
>
> The reason people stop running nodes is because there's no incentive to
> counteract the resource costs. Attempting to solve this by making blocks
> *smaller* is like curing a disease by killing the patient. (Incentivizing
> full node operation would fix that problem.)
>
> - t.k.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
>
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
--94eb2c07b01c3ec663054806d6f8
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"auto"><div>You're never going to reach 100% agreement, and =
stifling the network literally forever to please a tiny minority is daft.<b=
r><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Feb 8, 2017 =
8:52 AM, "alp alp via bitcoin-dev" <<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-=
dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>>=
; wrote:<br type=3D"attribution"><blockquote class=3D"quote" style=3D"margi=
n:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr">=
10% say literally never.=C2=A0 That seems like a significant disenfranchise=
ment and lack of consensus.</div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=
=3D"gmail_quote"><div class=3D"elided-text">On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 2:25 PM,=
t. khan via bitcoin-dev <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-de=
v@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.<wbr>linux=
foundation.org</a>></span> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_qu=
ote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex=
"><div class=3D"elided-text"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div>On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 2=
:53 PM, Luke Dashjr <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:luke@dashjr.org=
" target=3D"_blank">luke@dashjr.org</a>></span> wrote:<br></div><div><di=
v class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><blockquote class=3D"gma=
il_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-le=
ft-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><span><=
span class=3D"m_-8603678674590328520m_5903971323563278916gmail-">On Monday,=
February 06, 2017 6:19:43 PM you wrote:<br>
> >My BIP draft didn't make progress because the community oppose=
s any block<br>
> >size increase hardfork ever.<br>
><br>
</span></span><span><span class=3D"m_-8603678674590328520m_5903971323563278=
916gmail-">> Luke, how do you know the community opposes that? Specifica=
lly, how did you<br>
> come to this conclusion?<br>
<br>
</span></span><a href=3D"http://www.strawpoll.me/12228388/r" rel=3D"norefer=
rer" target=3D"_blank">http://www.strawpoll.me/122283<wbr>88/r</a></blockqu=
ote><div><br></div>That poll shows 63% of votes want a larger than 1 MB blo=
ck by this summer. How do you go from that to "the community opposes a=
ny block increase ever"? It shows the exact opposite of that.<div>=C2=
=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8e=
x;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,2=
04,204);padding-left:1ex"><span><span class=3D"m_-8603678674590328520m_5903=
971323563278916gmail-">
> >Your version doesn't address the current block size<br>
> >issues (ie, the blocks being too large).<br>
><br>
> Why do you think blocks are "too large"? Please cite some ev=
idence. I've<br>
> asked this before and you ignored it, but an answer would be helpful t=
o the<br>
> discussion.<br>
<br>
</span></span>Full node count is far below the safe minimum of 85% of econo=
mic activity.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Is this causing a problem=
now? If so, what?</div><div>=C2=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" =
style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:s=
olid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
Typically reasons given for people not using full nodes themselves come dow=
n<br>
to the high resource requirements caused by the block size.</blockquote><di=
v><br></div><div>The reason people stop running nodes is because there'=
s no incentive to counteract the resource costs. Attempting to solve this b=
y making blocks *smaller* is like curing a disease by killing the patient. =
(Incentivizing full node operation would fix that problem.)<br></div><div><=
br></div><div>- t.k.</div></div><br></div></div></div>
<br></div><div class=3D"quoted-text">______________________________<wbr>___=
______________<br>
bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">=
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundat<wbr>ion.org</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" =
rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.<wbr>org=
/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-d<wbr>ev</a><br>
<br></div></blockquote></div><br></div>
<br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.=
<wbr>linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" =
rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.<wbr>org=
/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-<wbr>dev</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div></div></div>
--94eb2c07b01c3ec663054806d6f8--
|
