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 3595A267 for ; Fri, 31 Jul 2015 00:15:30 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail.help.org (mail.help.org [70.90.2.18]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4F44119E for ; Fri, 31 Jul 2015 00:15:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.1.10.25] (B [10.1.10.25]) by mail.help.org with ESMTPA ; Thu, 30 Jul 2015 20:15:25 -0400 To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org References: <1B7F00D3-41AE-44BF-818D-EC4EF279DC11@gmail.com> <37D282C2-EF9C-4B8B-91E8-7D613B381824@phauna.org> <55B94FAD.7040205@mail.bihthai.net> <74767203-7F7A-4848-9923-DE1DE60A28B4@gmail.com> <25FD9AAD-99F5-4322-AF34-243F75AE82C4@gmail.com> From: Milly Bitcoin Message-ID: <55BABE17.7050900@bitcoins.info> Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 20:15:19 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <25FD9AAD-99F5-4322-AF34-243F75AE82C4@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 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] Why Satoshi's temporary anti-spam measure isn't temporary 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: Fri, 31 Jul 2015 00:15:30 -0000 These are the types of things I have been discussing in relation to a process: -A list of metrics -A Risk analysis of the baseline system. Bitcoin as it is now. -Mitigation strategies for each risk. -A set of goals. -A Road map for each goal that lists the changes or possible avenues to achieve that goal. Proposed changes would be measured against the same metrics and a risk analysis done so it can be compared with the baseline. For example, the block size debate would be discussed in the context of a road map related to a goal of increase scaling. One of the metrics would be a decentralization metric. (A framework for a decentralization metric is at http://www.hks.harvard.edu/fs/pnorris/Acrobat/stm103%20articles/Schneider_Decentralization.pdf). Cost would be one aspect of the decentralization metric. Russ On 7/30/2015 7:33 PM, Eric Lombrozo via bitcoin-dev wrote: > >> On Jul 30, 2015, at 5:29 AM, Gavin > > wrote: >> >> it is hard to have a rational conversation about that when even simple >> questions like 'what is s reasonable cost to run a full node' are met >> with silence. > > Some of the risks are pretty hard to quantify. But I think this misses > the bigger point - it very well *might* be possible to safely raise this > limit or even get rid of it by first fixing some serious issues with the > protocol. But over six years into the project and these issues continue > to be all-but-ignored by most of the community (including at least a few > core developers). I don’t think it’s really a matter of whether we agree > on whether it’s good to raise the block size limit, Gavin. I think it’s > a matter of a difference in priorities. > > - Eric > > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev >