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
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
|
Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <bbrelin@gmail.com>) id 1YyL51-00062q-Vg
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Fri, 29 May 2015 14:16:11 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 74.125.82.47 as permitted sender)
client-ip=74.125.82.47; envelope-from=bbrelin@gmail.com;
helo=mail-wg0-f47.google.com;
Received: from mail-wg0-f47.google.com ([74.125.82.47])
by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1YyL50-0001jX-BZ
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Fri, 29 May 2015 14:16:11 +0000
Received: by wgbgq6 with SMTP id gq6so64006710wgb.3
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Fri, 29 May 2015 07:16:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 10.194.83.39 with SMTP id n7mr15155467wjy.65.1432908964251;
Fri, 29 May 2015 07:16:04 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.28.154.137 with HTTP; Fri, 29 May 2015 07:15:43 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <c7638510161365275aeaeabf121031bc@national.shitposting.agency>
References: <16096345.A1MpJQQkRW@crushinator>
<CABsx9T3-zxCAagAS0megd06xvG5n-3tUL9NUK9TT3vt7XNL9Tg@mail.gmail.com>
<CANEZrP3VCaFsW4+gPm2kCJ9z7oVUZYVaeNf=_cJWEWwh4ZxiPQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CABsx9T21zjHyO-nh1aSBM3z4Bg015O0rOfYq7=Sy4mf=QxUVQA@mail.gmail.com>
<CANEZrP2BaKwhpPgcUHWAHswOmUeFLgEk4ysrn4+73qNzWDJ=yQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CABsx9T3nCJ-w_v-yEbEE2Ytb+xC65mhYqhoAhoOHw9tkPpG0TA@mail.gmail.com>
<CANEZrP1qH+zucYsGrMgnfi99e61Edxaj+xm=u_xYXga1g0WzJQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CAE-z3OVmw+0doCe0hmYE6A1D61h0AUh4Mtnf5Fg1e4zQBkpraQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CANEZrP0psA7hcJdKdA-r01UEt7ig3O-9vjwBMqKSEq-csu0hPQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CABsx9T23r_y2R9OEgqb3AAZf47Hh8BUJncjxxmPp5v_9uKEiqQ@mail.gmail.com>
<c7638510161365275aeaeabf121031bc@national.shitposting.agency>
From: Braun Brelin <bbrelin@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 29 May 2015 17:15:43 +0300
Message-ID: <CAJ2OvphPRm4KcnGfArZOom8cBK-hrC_wQaqV3_oTUO+vpCbztw@mail.gmail.com>
To: insecurity@national.shitposting.agency
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bb04c8acf4cf80517391d9c
X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
-1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for
sender-domain
0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
(bbrelin[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
-0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from
author's domain
0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature,
not necessarily valid
-0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
X-Headers-End: 1YyL50-0001jX-BZ
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proposed alternatives to the 20MB step
function
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: Fri, 29 May 2015 14:16:12 -0000
--047d7bb04c8acf4cf80517391d9c
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
How is this being pigheaded? In my opinion, this is leadership. If
*something* isn't implemented soon, the network is going to have some real
problems, right at the
time when adoption is starting to accelerate. I've been seeing nothing but
navel-gazing and circlejerks on this issue for weeks now. Gavin or Mike or
someone at some
point needs to step up and say "follow me".
Braun Brelin
On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 5:00 PM, <insecurity@national.shitposting.agency>
wrote:
> Are you really that pig headed that you are going to try and blow up the
> entire system just to get your way? A bunch of ignorant redditors do not
> make consensus, mercifully.
>
>
> On 2015-05-29 12:39, Gavin Andresen wrote:
> > What do other people think?
> >
> > If we can't come to an agreement soon, then I'll ask for help
> > reviewing/submitting patches to Mike's Bitcoin-Xt project that
> > implement a big increase now that grows over time so we may never have
> > to go through all this rancor and debate again.
> >
> > I'll then ask for help lobbying the merchant services and exchanges
> > and hosted wallet companies and other bitcoind-using-infrastructure
> > companies (and anybody who agrees with me that we need bigger blocks
> > sooner rather than later) to run Bitcoin-Xt instead of Bitcoin Core,
> > and state that they are running it. We'll be able to see uptake on the
> > network by monitoring client versions.
> >
> > Perhaps by the time that happens there will be consensus bigger blocks
> > are needed sooner rather than later; if so, great! The early
> > deployment will just serve as early testing, and all of the software
> > already deployed will ready for bigger blocks.
> >
> > But if there is still no consensus among developers but the "bigger
> > blocks now" movement is successful, I'll ask for help getting big
> > miners to do the same, and use the soft-fork block version voting
> > mechanism to (hopefully) get a majority and then a super-majority
> > willing to produce bigger blocks. The purpose of that process is to
> > prove to any doubters that they'd better start supporting bigger
> > blocks or they'll be left behind, and to give them a chance to upgrade
> > before that happens.
> >
> > Because if we can't come to consensus here, the ultimate authority for
> > determining consensus is what code the majority of merchants and
> > exchanges and miners are running.
> >
> > --
> >
> > --
> > Gavin Andresen
> >
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Bitcoin-development mailing list
> > Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>
--047d7bb04c8acf4cf80517391d9c
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr">How is this being pigheaded? In my opinion, this is leader=
ship.=C2=A0 If *something* isn't implemented soon, the network is going=
to have some real problems, right at the<div>time when adoption is startin=
g to accelerate.=C2=A0 I've been seeing nothing but navel-gazing and ci=
rclejerks on this issue for weeks now.=C2=A0 Gavin or Mike or someone at so=
me</div><div>point needs to step up and say "follow me".</div><di=
v><br></div><div>Braun Brelin</div><div><br></div></div><div class=3D"gmail=
_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 5:00 PM, <s=
pan dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:insecurity@national.shitposting.agenc=
y" target=3D"_blank">insecurity@national.shitposting.agency</a>></span> =
wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;bord=
er-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Are you really that pig headed tha=
t you are going to try and blow up the<br>
entire system just to get your way? A bunch of ignorant redditors do not<br=
>
make consensus, mercifully.<br>
<div><div class=3D"h5"><br>
<br>
On 2015-05-29 12:39, Gavin Andresen wrote:<br>
> What do other people think?<br>
><br>
> If we can't come to an agreement soon, then I'll ask for help<=
br>
> reviewing/submitting patches to Mike's Bitcoin-Xt project that<br>
> implement a big increase now that grows over time so we may never have=
<br>
> to go through all this rancor and debate again.<br>
><br>
> I'll then ask for help lobbying the merchant services and exchange=
s<br>
> and hosted wallet companies and other bitcoind-using-infrastructure<br=
>
> companies (and anybody who agrees with me that we need bigger blocks<b=
r>
> sooner rather than later) to run Bitcoin-Xt instead of Bitcoin Core,<b=
r>
> and state that they are running it. We'll be able to see uptake on=
the<br>
> network by monitoring client versions.<br>
><br>
> Perhaps by the time that happens there will be consensus bigger blocks=
<br>
> are needed sooner rather than later; if so, great! The early<br>
> deployment will just serve as early testing, and all of the software<b=
r>
> already deployed will ready for bigger blocks.<br>
><br>
> But if there is still no consensus among developers but the "bigg=
er<br>
> blocks now" movement is successful, I'll ask for help getting=
big<br>
> miners to do the same, and use the soft-fork block version voting<br>
> mechanism to (hopefully) get a majority and then a super-majority<br>
> willing to produce bigger blocks. The purpose of that process is to<br=
>
> prove to any doubters that they'd better start supporting bigger<b=
r>
> blocks or they'll be left behind, and to give them a chance to upg=
rade<br>
> before that happens.<br>
><br>
> Because if we can't come to consensus here, the ultimate authority=
for<br>
> determining consensus is what code the majority of merchants and<br>
> exchanges and miners are running.<br>
><br>
> --<br>
><br>
> --<br>
> Gavin Andresen<br>
><br>
</div></div>> ----------------------------------------------------------=
--------------------<br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> Bitcoin-development mailing list<br>
> <a href=3D"mailto:Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net">Bitcoin-d=
evelopment@lists.sourceforge.net</a><br>
> <a href=3D"https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-develo=
pment" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitco=
in-development</a><br>
<br>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
---<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Bitcoin-development mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net">Bitcoin-develo=
pment@lists.sourceforge.net</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development=
" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-de=
velopment</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br></div>
--047d7bb04c8acf4cf80517391d9c--
|
