From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1YqTLz-0008C0-EP for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 07 May 2015 21:29:11 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of bluematt.me designates 192.241.179.72 as permitted sender) client-ip=192.241.179.72; envelope-from=bitcoin-list@bluematt.me; helo=mail.bluematt.me; Received: from mail.bluematt.me ([192.241.179.72]) by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.76) id 1YqTLy-0006a7-9x for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 07 May 2015 21:29:11 +0000 Received: from [172.17.0.2] (gw.vpn.bluematt.me [162.243.132.6]) by mail.bluematt.me (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E1E7D54167; Thu, 7 May 2015 21:29:03 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <554BD91D.6030201@bluematt.me> Date: Thu, 07 May 2015 21:29:01 +0000 From: Matt Corallo User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mike Hearn References: <554A91BE.6060105@bluematt.me> <554BA032.4040405@bluematt.me> <554BB718.6070104@bluematt.me> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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 T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 0.0 AWL AWL: Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address X-Headers-End: 1YqTLy-0006a7-9x 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 21:29:11 -0000 On 05/07/15 19:34, Mike Hearn wrote: > The appropriate method of doing any fork, that we seem to have been > following for a long time, is to get consensus here and on IRC and on > github and *then* go pitch to the general public > > > So your concern is just about the ordering and process of things, and > not about the change itself? No, I'm very concerned about both. > I have witnessed many arguments in IRC about block sizes over the years. > There was another one just a few weeks ago. Pieter left the channel for > his own sanity. IRC is not a good medium for arriving at decisions on > things - many people can't afford to sit on IRC all day and > conversations can be hard to follow. Additionally, they tend to go circular. I agree, thats why this mailing list was created in the first place (well, also because bitcointalk is too full of spam, but close enought :)) > That said, I don't know if you can draw a line between the "ins" and > "outs" like that. The general public is watching, commenting and > deciding no matter what. Might as well deal with that and debate in a > format more accessible to all. Its true, just like its true the general public can opt to run any version of software they want. That said, the greater software development community has to update /all/ the software across the entire ecosystem, and thus provide what amounts to a strong recommendation of which course to take. Additionally, though there are issues (eg if there was a push to remove the total coin limit) which are purely political, and thus which should be up to the greater public to decide, the blocksize increase is not that. It is intricately tied to Bitcoin's delicate incentive structure, which many of the development community are far more farmiliar with than the general Bitcoin public. If there were a listserv that was comprised primarily of people on #bitcoin-wizards, I might have suggested a discussion there, first, but there isnt (as far as I know?). > If, instead, there had been an intro on the list as "I think we should > do the blocksize increase soon, what do people think?" > > > There have been many such discussions over time. On bitcointalk. On > reddit. On IRC. At developer conferences. Gavin already knew what many > of the objections would be, which is why he started answering them. > > But alright. Let's say he should have started a thread. Thanks for > starting it for him. > > Now, can we get this specific list of things we should do before we're > prepared? Yes....I'm gonna split the topic since this is already far off course for that :). > A specific credible alternative to what? Committing to blocksize > increases tomorrow? Yes, doing more research into this and developing > software around supporting larger block sizes so people feel comfortable > doing it in six months. > > > Do you have a specific research suggestion? Gavin has run simulations > across the internet with modified full nodes that use 20mb blocks, using > real data from the block chain. They seem to suggest it works OK. > > What software do you have in mind? Let me answer that in a new thread :).