path: root/ff/d2bc1415f52db7b22ca2d9f586c3230c17f222

Return-Path: <teekhan42@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
	[172.17.192.35])
	by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E6A59B76
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Wed,  8 Feb 2017 19:53:17 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-ua0-f178.google.com (mail-ua0-f178.google.com
	[209.85.217.178])
	by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0B87A175
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Wed,  8 Feb 2017 19:53:16 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-ua0-f178.google.com with SMTP id 96so117871339uaq.3
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Wed, 08 Feb 2017 11:53:16 -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=AFpdrIHgvz8YGAdIgSzYqXNcbnPIYdN6eT1j9VeXQW0=;
	b=DCsEUm6BxYpl1uRdIzFb/4aBBPcfRQkmwaaqZmkNC0omKW2SI3md0ni6vIT1lVecYN
	ipCzFvxXTXGb1/OrS09KEont4fqgUnYoAwWTSZkerpD8MlL8QzlP7AEJC+0axCdysVW5
	Ht3ZYXvBZz6LXwT3+5RdNSukQVpaFg8sV8+AZ7Oh9dbT1f8d5Tj0MUfYAKq90qvqRmXV
	Wf6pMJAb5MoqAJPktp1uTvQi3X3dqAZpazj6ptnaETseD7VZrWFClExLgWcsZTeP7BzT
	BQljHcf1PpYQrWqEJzdQ/TH+0t8d4P95etNBAPlLvLTBow3pX//F1PbRvKZ1LfGz82tA
	v6Ag==
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=AFpdrIHgvz8YGAdIgSzYqXNcbnPIYdN6eT1j9VeXQW0=;
	b=qRgHG4YbrzHnMX9t0Qe0x4EDTlmnwOYY3nWONjLU/hz6Q+SNElCdiHtG1vMrpt0ISN
	xNpJCeu3/N5od/gION1VAm7SI62sRtw+ERRljTrxAG+euyaSgTiJLnhktrlUx3B/uBgy
	lsx6HsvHyhLaciPAQHg073A/+Lh7Ck15JW/D7F+qwUxdG2E0RaX948xQWiPtU9JglbeS
	Y3lyCO2MkF6E2BpVeooKOP4QH7lOHZE4bX3e3wpk+9YJ6O0JOBdGWxPjnpC7F0g9pRJ4
	qV1wGbgPejpfwbhH5VENT5i3TfEZFhLhHlL7UGgTrEYK7bZL/nzAWPUCBPITIfvciKdr
	vzgQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXKpOSI+muGEddnK+tYJldS7a5rPBQN6ehXgoVLy9vvRPsK9gwybmE4YkW7J24gELRrT0xjnPshVs86qww==
X-Received: by 10.159.36.73 with SMTP id 67mr12177004uaq.124.1486583596220;
	Wed, 08 Feb 2017 11:53:16 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.103.49.77 with HTTP; Wed, 8 Feb 2017 11:53:15 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAMBsKS_JKNJFLB_ao8-dcWgWB8o5bGLbNPrPtvSmobrryZVEmQ@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>
	<CAAy62_LcpgXss9hMTG_kwoGbuTOmfpmEc-awi5gNybq0fYErfQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAMBsKS-Zek5qHB=Yvf0=8EKZkZL8qxAK3n=Cn7Kq6GCwt774_w@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAy62_+AhknwH38fadiT2WTHZsiCZp-sPbVhDnKCHXwatCypnQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAMBsKS_JKNJFLB_ao8-dcWgWB8o5bGLbNPrPtvSmobrryZVEmQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: "t. khan" <teekhan42@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2017 14:53:15 -0500
Message-ID: <CAGCNRJq3sj5Y2PHPc=Ckrpn0RGBj=OyoU3+e-1p-19znE=RnVg@mail.gmail.com>
To: alp alp <alp.bitcoin@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113e1c9c2e880705480a372e
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
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
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 19:53:18 -0000

--001a113e1c9c2e880705480a372e
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

Even ignoring the obvious flaws of that poll, Andrew is still correct: you
cannot reach 100% consensus. It's statistically impossible in any large
group.

Only the majority needs to consent, though what is considered a majority
varies depending on the context (95%, 75%, 51%). Nowhere does it say
"everyone needs to agree".

On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 1:16 PM, alp alp <alp.bitcoin@gmail.com> wrote:

> Doing nothing is the rules we all agreed to.  If those rules are to be
> changed,nearly everyone will need to consent.  The same rule applies to the
> cap, we all agreed to 21m, and if someone wants to change that, nearly
> everyone would need to agree.
>
>
> On Feb 8, 2017 10:28 AM, "Andrew Johnson" <andrew.johnson83@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> It is when you're talking about making a choice and 6.3x more people
> prefer something else. Doing nothing is a choice as well.
>
> Put another way, if 10% supported increasing the 21M coin cap and 63% were
> against, would you seriously consider doing it?
>
> On Feb 8, 2017 9:57 AM, "alp alp" <alp.bitcoin@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 10% is not a tiny minority.
>>
>> On Feb 8, 2017 9:51 AM, "Andrew Johnson" <andrew.johnson83@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>

--001a113e1c9c2e880705480a372e
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">Even ignoring the obvious flaws of that poll, Andrew is st=
ill correct: you cannot reach 100% consensus. It&#39;s statistically imposs=
ible in any large group.<div><br></div><div>Only the majority needs to cons=
ent, though what is considered a majority varies depending on the context (=
95%, 75%, 51%). Nowhere does it say &quot;everyone needs to agree&quot;.</d=
iv></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Wed, =
Feb 8, 2017 at 1:16 PM, alp alp <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:alp=
.bitcoin@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">alp.bitcoin@gmail.com</a>&gt;</span> =
wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;bord=
er-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"auto"><div>Doing nothi=
ng is the rules we all agreed to.=C2=A0 If those rules are to be changed,ne=
arly everyone will need to consent.=C2=A0 The same rule applies to the cap,=
 we all agreed to 21m, and if someone wants to change that, nearly everyone=
 would need to agree.<div><div class=3D"h5"><br><div class=3D"gmail_extra">=
<br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Feb 8, 2017 10:28 AM, &quot;Andrew Johnso=
n&quot; &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:andrew.johnson83@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank"=
>andrew.johnson83@gmail.com</a>&gt; wrote:<br type=3D"attribution"><blockqu=
ote class=3D"m_-5874806019637096914quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border=
-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"auto">It is when you&#39=
;re talking about making a choice and 6.3x more people prefer something els=
e. Doing nothing is a choice as well.<div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=
=3D"auto">Put another way, if 10% supported increasing the 21M coin cap and=
 63% were against, would you seriously consider doing it?</div></div><div c=
lass=3D"m_-5874806019637096914elided-text"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><=
div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Feb 8, 2017 9:57 AM, &quot;alp alp&quot; &lt;<=
a href=3D"mailto:alp.bitcoin@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">alp.bitcoin@gmail=
.com</a>&gt; wrote:<br type=3D"attribution"><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quot=
e" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">=
<div dir=3D"auto">10% is not a tiny minority.</div><div class=3D"gmail_extr=
a"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Feb 8, 2017 9:51 AM, &quot;Andrew John=
son&quot; &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:andrew.johnson83@gmail.com" target=3D"_blan=
k">andrew.johnson83@gmail.com</a>&gt; wrote:<br type=3D"attribution"><block=
quote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc=
 solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"auto"><div>You&#39;re never going to r=
each 100% agreement, and stifling the network literally forever to please a=
 tiny minority is daft.<br><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gma=
il_quote">On Feb 8, 2017 8:52 AM, &quot;alp alp via bitcoin-dev&quot; &lt;<=
a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">b=
itcoin-dev@lists.linuxfounda<wbr>tion.org</a>&gt; wrote:<br type=3D"attribu=
tion"><blockquote class=3D"m_-5874806019637096914m_-4533964880556653042m_-8=
682514029143378247m_-1566305387424443597quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;b=
order-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr">10% say litera=
lly never.=C2=A0 That seems like a significant disenfranchisement and lack =
of consensus.</div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote=
"><div class=3D"m_-5874806019637096914m_-4533964880556653042m_-868251402914=
3378247m_-1566305387424443597elided-text">On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 2:25 PM, t=
. khan via bitcoin-dev <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@=
lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfounda<=
wbr>tion.org</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quot=
e" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">=
<div class=3D"m_-5874806019637096914m_-4533964880556653042m_-86825140291433=
78247m_-1566305387424443597elided-text"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div>On Mon, Feb 6=
, 2017 at 2:53 PM, Luke Dashjr <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:luke=
@dashjr.org" target=3D"_blank">luke@dashjr.org</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br></d=
iv><div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><blockquote c=
lass=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1p=
x;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1=
ex"><span><span class=3D"m_-5874806019637096914m_-4533964880556653042m_-868=
2514029143378247m_-1566305387424443597m_-8603678674590328520m_5903971323563=
278916gmail-">On Monday, February 06, 2017 6:19:43 PM you wrote:<br>
&gt; &gt;My BIP draft didn&#39;t make progress because the community oppose=
s any block<br>
&gt; &gt;size increase hardfork ever.<br>
&gt;<br>
</span></span><span><span class=3D"m_-5874806019637096914m_-453396488055665=
3042m_-8682514029143378247m_-1566305387424443597m_-8603678674590328520m_590=
3971323563278916gmail-">&gt; Luke, how do you know the community opposes th=
at? Specifically, how did you<br>
&gt; 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 &quot;the community opposes a=
ny block increase ever&quot;? 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_-5874806019637096914m_-453=
3964880556653042m_-8682514029143378247m_-1566305387424443597m_-860367867459=
0328520m_5903971323563278916gmail-">
&gt; &gt;Your version doesn&#39;t address the current block size<br>
&gt; &gt;issues (ie, the blocks being too large).<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; Why do you think blocks are &quot;too large&quot;? Please cite some ev=
idence. I&#39;ve<br>
&gt; asked this before and you ignored it, but an answer would be helpful t=
o the<br>
&gt; 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&#39;=
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"m_-5874806019637096914m_-4533964880556653042m_-8682=
514029143378247m_-1566305387424443597quoted-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" 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></blockquote></div><br></div></div></div>
</blockquote></div></div>
</blockquote></div></div>
</div></blockquote></div><br></div></div></div></div></div>
</blockquote></div><br></div>

--001a113e1c9c2e880705480a372e--