From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1YqIng-00071E-Cj for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 07 May 2015 10:13:04 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of petertodd.org designates 62.13.149.101 as permitted sender) client-ip=62.13.149.101; envelope-from=pete@petertodd.org; helo=outmail149101.authsmtp.com; Received: from outmail149101.authsmtp.com ([62.13.149.101]) by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) id 1YqInf-00080x-1p for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 07 May 2015 10:13:04 +0000 Received: from mail-c235.authsmtp.com (mail-c235.authsmtp.com [62.13.128.235]) by punt15.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id t47ACush048190; Thu, 7 May 2015 11:12:56 +0100 (BST) Received: from savin.petertodd.org (75-119-251-161.dsl.teksavvy.com [75.119.251.161]) (authenticated bits=128) by mail.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id t47ACpiW033868 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 7 May 2015 11:12:53 +0100 (BST) Date: Thu, 7 May 2015 06:12:50 -0400 From: Peter Todd To: Mike Hearn Message-ID: <20150507101250.GA19538@savin.petertodd.org> References: <554A91BE.6060105@bluematt.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="k+w/mQv8wyuph6w0" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Server-Quench: a061866c-f4a1-11e4-b396-002590a15da7 X-AuthReport-Spam: If SPAM / abuse - report it at: http://www.authsmtp.com/abuse X-AuthRoute: OCd2Yg0TA1ZNQRgX IjsJECJaVQIpKltL GxAVKBZePFsRUQkR aQdMdgUUFVQNAgsB AmMbWlVeUV97XGc7 bA9PbARUfEhLXhtr VklWR1pVCwQmRRgG d21eC35ydAZOfnY+ ZEJmW3IVDUR8dE57 RB1JQ2lXZHphaTUb TRJbfgVJcANIexZF O1F6ACIKLwdSbGoL NQ4vNDcwO3BTJTpY RgYVKF8UXXNDNDo7 TBNKJjQ9EAUkQS4p IhU9JzYB X-Authentic-SMTP: 61633532353630.1023:706 X-AuthFastPath: 0 (Was 255) X-AuthSMTP-Origin: 75.119.251.161/587 X-AuthVirus-Status: No virus detected - but ensure you scan with your own anti-virus system. X-Spam-Score: -1.5 (-) 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 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record X-Headers-End: 1YqInf-00080x-1p Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Block Size Increase X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 May 2015 10:13:04 -0000 --k+w/mQv8wyuph6w0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, May 07, 2015 at 11:25:04AM +0200, Mike Hearn wrote: > > Certainly a consensus in this kind of technical community should be a > > basic requirement for any serious commitment to blocksize increase. > > >=20 > I'm afraid I have come to disagree. I no longer believe this community can > reach consensus on anything protocol related. Some of these arguments have > dragged on for years. Consensus isn't even well defined - consensus of wh= o? > Anyone who shows up? And what happens when, inevitably, no consensus is > reached? Stasis forever? Care to be specific? We've made lots of protocol related changes, as well as non-consensus policy changes, often in quite short timeframes, and with little drama. For instance BIP66 adopting is progressing smoothly, and itself was very quickly developed as part of a broader response to a serious OpenSSL flaw. My own BIP65 is getting wide consensus with little drama and good peer review, and that's happening even without as much attention paid to it from myself as I should have been giving it. The BIP62 malleability softfork is going more slowly, but that's because peer review is finding issues and fixing them - something to be expected in an environment where we simply must be cautious. As for the v0.11 release, it will have pruning, perhaps the biggest change to the way Bitcoin Core works that we've ever made. Equally it's notable how many people collaborated on the implementation of pruning, again with little drama. Sure, some stuff has been hard to get consensus on. But those things carry high risks, and involve code and practices known to be dangerous. In most cases we've found out the lack of consensus was spot on, and controversial changes turn out later to have severe security vulnerabilities. I read that as a sign that the peer review and consensus building process works just fine. --=20 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org 00000000000000000af0c4ba9d91c00d48c4493899d7235fd819ac76f16d148d --k+w/mQv8wyuph6w0 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQGrBAEBCACVBQJVSzqeXhSAAAAAABUAQGJsb2NraGFzaEBiaXRjb2luLm9yZzAw MDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwMmMyYzJhYWVkNDk2ZDcyN2Q5MzFiNzVjNTYyYTMwMTNh YjcwMmM3YjFkZjZjOTYvFIAAAAAAFQARcGthLWFkZHJlc3NAZ251cGcub3JncGV0 ZUBwZXRlcnRvZC5vcmcACgkQJIFAPaXwkftoFAf/d/uPFvA4p2YOMn6RoadZZKUD GvA2yqDYd0GE/Z2EW3XTJTvtgiXwchJfgq6VV1sYv4eI0IV4tPxEYG1zZS6RRsto bm3nRHz/OETYLQf7YgEUheq5Y8lmGQQMIZJUL3KFNssrq6Q4laoBQI3rjCzq+VfW HddaIkEKQB+RMeS5TeYEyyHYD4HJIwKzTC8Sqi+Imt/a28NIqlhv3/efikSYWR0X ispsAFNWnDL5DysXvaGFyE9RcljwN0/XO1OhlmbsmEFp9nLF+QdzlU6vCkRDO44/ jk7gck8sJEIwYo7FzJ2iJv5423Toxos4oVeLdJkIPJOIrbolM3014795jSl/XA== =I3Fd -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --k+w/mQv8wyuph6w0--