From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6E2A4948 for ; Sat, 14 Nov 2015 00:02:03 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-qk0-f182.google.com (mail-qk0-f182.google.com [209.85.220.182]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C57CBCB for ; Sat, 14 Nov 2015 00:02:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: by qkcl124 with SMTP id l124so64933076qkc.3 for ; Fri, 13 Nov 2015 16:02:02 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=date:mime-version:message-id:in-reply-to:references:from:to:cc :subject:content-type; bh=As+WlYkXqEjI1kOsNgmx8x9jkJHCDYUVSLp93JNa4Hk=; b=DxrSIQU/9kh3KxXnkibFouAVmOBDjy9d+wnqv74rp7r3748C6Udn1SaBSPaPVf+Zz4 fYAqLxt8U62tRDXAE8vsxSTwiUE0klnCb5k3R0LE8hTcBBLzhkoivYcVAYH6n7F0jnSP SCYOmeeRU5OA2KNXuoSJ2BaUS+DkUkqJw5OsIQ5wHUXWtArHjvfcZE6W9aJVJXcSN8ZS RFWs2pVQr3d3TwTTD8/CVYEkDwcn+/OjU87vAV4Zg/IQ37v0EAZFJa9zeIDPRHrnYIpC C3yYxEg7Xzh0c8ZtFJ7c+jyQKO2o5YYTTeIA5i6Hcp5tmIVfPW5Vt4KMy+fFxjYZTYj+ mnug== X-Received: by 10.140.91.135 with SMTP id z7mr24397051qgd.91.1447459322053; Fri, 13 Nov 2015 16:02:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from hedwig-18.prd.orcali.com (ec2-54-85-253-144.compute-1.amazonaws.com. [54.85.253.144]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id e7sm5927622qkb.40.2015.11.13.16.02.00 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 13 Nov 2015 16:02:01 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2015 16:02:01 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Original-Date: Sat, 14 Nov 2015 00:02:00 GMT MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Nodemailer (0.5.0; +http://www.nodemailer.com/) Message-Id: <1447459320911.325f57c8@Nodemailer> In-Reply-To: <201511132228.47815.luke@dashjr.org> References: <201511132228.47815.luke@dashjr.org> X-Orchestra-Oid: C6D2FC41-8CE1-48BB-81FE-F4BD6B33579D X-Orchestra-Sig: d911e23e18e8bb36172947ae36afe6a5211adb96 X-Orchestra-Thrid: TD56C876D-E76D-40BE-ACDA-81C322724964_1517680466063067662 X-Orchestra-Thrid-Sig: e85087898c72fcf1968615a701ec9131f704098a X-Orchestra-Account: 7ba2c8722f862e38dcc787ad17b56bc397d25204 From: digitsu@gmail.com To: "Luke Dashjr" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----Nodemailer-0.5.0-?=_1-1447459321118" X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,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 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sat, 14 Nov 2015 08:30:41 +0000 Cc: Bitcoin Dev , John Sacco Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP - Block size doubles at each reward halving with max block size of 32M X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 14 Nov 2015 00:02:03 -0000 ------Nodemailer-0.5.0-?=_1-1447459321118 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Well I'd like to think that with an economy all parts of it interact with = each other in ways more complex than simplistic imperative logic.=C2=A0 I agree that the economic majority is essentially what matters in a hard = fork but everyone (miners,devs,public thought leaders,businesses) is part = of that economy. Additionally what miners signal as their intention affects= the decision of that economic majority (and vice versa). =C2=A0You can see= the effects of this in traditional political processes in how preliminary = vote polling results affect (reinforce) the final vote.=C2=A0 We also can see the results of this in (dare I mention) the whole XT affair= which had the signed intent of many of the economy (payment processors and= wallets and one miner pool) and the rest of the miners did not go along = with it. This experiment either means that the rest of the miners couldn't = be bothered to signal at all (because they didn't know how) or they were = affected by the influence of core devs or the opinions of others on the = matter and rejected the economic majority. =C2=A0(Which would imply core = devs have some power by way of indirect influence) I would be inclined to = believe the latter was more likely.=C2=A0 The conclusion which this would seem to imply is that at the very least, = miners matter (to what exact extent is debatable). =C2=A0And although there= is no direct control of any party over the other in the strict sense, the = public vocal opinions of any part of the Bitcoin economy does have an = effect in its ability to sway the opinions of the other parts.=C2=A0 Digitsu =E2=80=94 Regards, On Sat, Nov 14, 2015 at 7:29 AM, Luke Dashjr wrote: > On Friday, November 13, 2015 4:01:09 PM digitsu@gmail.com wrote: >> Forgive the frankness but I don't see why signaling your intent to = support >> an upgrade to one side of a hard fork can be seen as a bad thing. If = for >> nothing else doesn't this make for a smoother flag day=3F (Because once = you >> signal your intention, it makes it hard to back out on the commitment.) > It isn't a commitment in any sense, nor does it make it smoother, because= for=20 > a hardfork to be successful, it is the *economy* that must switch = entirely.=20 > The miners are unimportant. >> If miners don't have any choice in hard forks, who does=3F Just the = core >> devs=3F=20 > Devs have even less of a choice in the matter. What is relevant is = the=20 > economy: who do people want to spend their bitcoins with=3F There is = no=20 > programmatic way to determine this, especially not in advance, so the = best we=20 > can do is a flag day that gets called off if there isn't clear consensus.= > Luke ------Nodemailer-0.5.0-?=_1-1447459321118 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Well I'd like to think that with an economy all parts of it interact = with each other in ways more complex than simplistic imperative logic.= =C2=A0

I agree that the economic majority is essentially what matters in a = hard fork but everyone (miners,devs,public thought leaders,businesses) is = part of that economy. Additionally what miners signal as their intention = affects the decision of that economic majority (and vice versa). =C2=A0You = can see the effects of this in traditional political processes in how = preliminary vote polling results affect (reinforce) the final vote.= =C2=A0
We also can see the results of this in (dare I mention) the whole XT = affair which had the signed intent of many of the economy (payment = processors and wallets and one miner pool) and the rest of the miners did = not go along with it. This experiment either means that the rest of the = miners couldn't be bothered to signal at all (because they didn't know how)= or they were affected by the influence of core devs or the opinions of = others on the matter and rejected the economic majority. =C2=A0(Which would= imply core devs have some power by way of indirect influence) I would be = inclined to believe the latter was more likely.=C2=A0

The conclusion which this would seem to imply is that at the very = least, miners matter (to what exact extent is debatable). =C2=A0And = although there is no direct control of any party over the other in the = strict sense, the public vocal opinions of any part of the Bitcoin economy = does have an effect in its ability to sway the opinions of the other parts.= =C2=A0

Digitsu

=E2=80=94 Regards,


On Sat, Nov 14, 2015 at 7:29 AM= , Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org> = wrote:

On Friday, = November 13, 2015 4:01:09 PM digitsu@gmail.com wrote:
> Forgive the frankness but I don't see why signaling your intent to= support
> an upgrade to one side of a hard fork can be seen as a bad thing. = If for
> nothing else doesn't this make for a smoother flag day=3F (Because= once you
> signal your intention, it makes it hard to back out on the = commitment.)

It isn't a commitment in any sense, nor does it make it smoother, = because for=20
a hardfork to be successful, it is the *economy* that must switch = entirely.=20
The miners are unimportant.

> If miners don't have any choice in hard forks, who does=3F = Just the core
> devs=3F=20

Devs have even less of a choice in the matter. What is relevant is = the=20
economy: who do people want to spend their bitcoins with=3F There is = no=20
programmatic way to determine this, especially not in advance, so the = best we=20
can do is a flag day that gets called off if there isn't clear = consensus.

Luke


------Nodemailer-0.5.0-?=_1-1447459321118--