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 EA14940C for ; Tue, 21 Jul 2015 13:58:53 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from outmail148110.authsmtp.com (outmail148110.authsmtp.com [62.13.148.110]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4029B153 for ; Tue, 21 Jul 2015 13:58:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-c237.authsmtp.com (mail-c237.authsmtp.com [62.13.128.237]) by punt16.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id t6LDwoRH072323; Tue, 21 Jul 2015 14:58:50 +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 t6LDwkvf004887 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 21 Jul 2015 14:58:49 +0100 (BST) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2015 09:58:46 -0400 From: Peter Todd To: Jorge =?iso-8859-1?Q?Tim=F3n?= , bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org Message-ID: <20150721135846.GB13429@savin.petertodd.org> References: <55A9421B.6040605@jrn.me.uk> <55AC29DB.4060800@jrn.me.uk> <20150721130412.GA4551@savin.petertodd.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="eJnRUKwClWJh1Khz" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150721130412.GA4551@savin.petertodd.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Server-Quench: 9cdd020a-2fb0-11e5-9f75-002590a135d3 X-AuthReport-Spam: If SPAM / abuse - report it at: http://www.authsmtp.com/abuse X-AuthRoute: OCd2Yg0TA1ZNQRgX IjsJECJaVQIpKltL GxAVKBZePFsRUQkR aAdMdAMUEkAYAgsB AmMbWlBeVVV7XWo7 bA9PbARUfEhLXhtr VklWR1pVCwQmRRp9 cllFFE9ydwFOcHk+ ZERnWXMVVRcuIUZ/ Qh9JFztUZXphaTUa TUkOcAZJcANIexZF O1F8UScOLwdSbGoL FQ4vNDcwO3BTJTpg CissFRpLGRxDW3Y/ RhsBVSkvEAUOTiN7 Ixs5LBYAHEtZKEI7 PRM9XhpCFjV6 X-Authentic-SMTP: 61633532353630.1024:706 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-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,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 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP 102 - kick the can down the road to 2MB 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: Tue, 21 Jul 2015 13:58:54 -0000 --eJnRUKwClWJh1Khz Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 09:04:12AM -0400, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev wrote: > For that reason I think BIP102 is extremely poorly designed. I can only > conclude that Jeff Garzik is either deliberately trolling us and/or > manipulating discussion with a badly designed proposal that he doesn't > actually expect to be adopted verbatim, or is incompetent. Expanding on that a bit: On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 09:14:26PM +0800, Jeremy Rubin wrote: > unsolicited feedback: > > I'd send a quick apology for this bit > > """ > For that reason I think BIP102 is extremely poorly designed. I can only > conclude that Jeff Garzik is either deliberately trolling us and/or > manipulating discussion with a badly designed proposal that he doesn't > actually expect to be adopted verbatim, or is incompetent. > """ > > it's a little over the top. > > I think that Garzik is probably releasing it in reaction to the fact > certain people are only looking at something with code attached. > > No need to call someone stupid for sharing a proposal... although it seems > sketchy that he got a BIP # for this. You want to foster a less hostile > community... I don't agree with you at all. This is a case where if Jeff doesn't understand that issue, he's proposing changes that he's not competent enough to understand, and it'd save us a lot of review effort if he left that discussion. Equally, Jeff is in a position in the dev community where he should be that competent; if he actually isn't it does a lot of good for the broader community to change that opinion. I personally *don't* think he's doing that, rather I believe he knows full well it's a bad patch and is proposing it because he wants to push discussion towards a solution. Often trolling the a audience with bad patches is an effective way to motivate people to respond by writing better ones; Jeff has told me he often does exactly that. I think in this case we shouldn't do anything, so short-circuiting that process by pointing out what he's doing publicly makes sense. Re: BIP #'s, we explicitly have a policy of allocating them for stupid ideas, to avoid having to be gatekeepers. Ironically that makes it harder to get a BIP # if you know what you're doing, because Gregory Maxwell will argue against you in private and delay actually allocating one if he knows you should know better. :) --=20 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org 00000000000000000d9cad4228c0396ff49c1de60f8ee155928eee22705f6619 --eJnRUKwClWJh1Khz Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQGrBAEBCACVBQJVrlARXhSAAAAAABUAQGJsb2NraGFzaEBiaXRjb2luLm9yZzAw MDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwZDljYWQ0MjI4YzAzOTZmZjQ5YzFkZTYwZjhlZTE1NTky OGVlZTIyNzA1ZjY2MTkvFIAAAAAAFQARcGthLWFkZHJlc3NAZ251cGcub3JncGV0 ZUBwZXRlcnRvZC5vcmcACgkQJIFAPaXwkfuIGAgArJ1VDJqr9VoeTqHrDBy/kpUp tbsAxunKm2XdqM30US4h1WNQ+epAFG39MOdWxYmFhYvyQBbuML2gPJJ+dYhVdgKu CHIMqd/+Eksu5kZ+SBXW8QKZA5XnM86mp9tQlQgWCkPEc3riD5panYIVI9pn/BeH lLRRfbKTYu7MAe89D2su0Gjt09VGH3rT7e9rW4tY/Ok7T56zNmiSD8kvJVXHCyQa C1p8DvWUs1PpVL/S3hlWZpzlJFOz1GyysgmXJQJ2bG/44EPMAt/wB/I47eGCqLY6 dxAr25vrKMN/x0wslQjGp+EVUgPu8AxpJYe+VTai06TQ33o6mlkfFkPu8/HuUw== =Kfo6 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --eJnRUKwClWJh1Khz--