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 6013DBDD for ; Mon, 21 Dec 2015 05:29:26 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from omr1.cc.vt.edu (outbound.smtp.vt.edu [198.82.183.121]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 264C310C for ; Mon, 21 Dec 2015 05:29:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mr2.cc.vt.edu (mr2.cc.ipv6.vt.edu [IPv6:2001:468:c80:2105:0:212:7ed0:359e]) by omr1.cc.vt.edu (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id tBL5TNGF003477 for ; Mon, 21 Dec 2015 00:29:23 -0500 Received: from mail-pf0-f171.google.com (mail-pf0-f171.google.com [209.85.192.171]) by mr2.cc.vt.edu (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id tBL5TI0T020931 for ; Mon, 21 Dec 2015 00:29:23 -0500 Received: by mail-pf0-f171.google.com with SMTP id n128so65715832pfn.0 for ; Sun, 20 Dec 2015 21:29:23 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=awzNd0EoIJOFqeapncja7gDYEH26Ib3vh7FH3Fx35Vs=; b=h/fqdf+6pRDNaqPkJ85Vd3IaEOfxZYAXT0Lkwmn/TI+jSLShi3v4E08NCBSXxuloRe uAk/ADg1rwoiGwEz/anrdQbdfxYWqZjTMLigCJG4YcbCxElY2yr6SUX+5KM+6afXx1Sq WyiNXnaccRONveUSIX92hOgFNKNRKjZsX99gqB8n0r5acKO2nTnoB+Qf/E+jipNhO9bb PknsAn2T3IqkNF3Dz3UtCrnWdFR0S2FnIbCmYC9U3bnh05UxEfBF+3o9oSNvjaOHONX4 i6vhssNTDuBP2+/3yB00VW+EJESET4tPLUDrxOscwM+Rpm4o71VX1guvEPj6OPJidZ1G OBtQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQklcHusu7ZTQfdMh9kn34FKmJSDOFnCyGVITVLWdlsBBVV+9p1cRWzlOLVbGqB+YkdrGgpMw4QAfFmhGwkt9qdXulkR6wTW3p63YLCXFHqji2S/ry4KMhjBChx4pWTAOcqtoX6omFmHJQrqR1rCMqrbT2L6Gs56WaP6dsGVhojjllB5pK0NyYhfcuOCxE7X46xMaiEdhkrW8mK5hkf2oCCFfUANjUrPEyVZQEV77Ckw/gjY0sw= X-Received: by 10.98.16.70 with SMTP id y67mr2118390pfi.150.1450675758150; Sun, 20 Dec 2015 21:29:18 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.98.16.70 with SMTP id y67mr2118374pfi.150.1450675758019; Sun, 20 Dec 2015 21:29:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.230] (c-24-22-36-12.hsd1.or.comcast.net. [24.22.36.12]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id ux2sm35964854pac.46.2015.12.20.21.29.17 for (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sun, 20 Dec 2015 21:29:17 -0800 (PST) To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org References: <20151208110752.GA31180@amethyst.visucore.com> From: Douglas Roark X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1210 Message-ID: <56778E2C.6040709@vt.edu> Date: Sun, 20 Dec 2015 21:29:16 -0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED, RP_MATCHES_RCVD 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] Capacity increases for the Bitcoin system. 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: Mon, 21 Dec 2015 05:29:26 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 On 2015/12/20 20:50, Mark Friedenbach via bitcoin-dev wrote: > I am fully in support of the plan laid out in "Capacity increases > for the bitcoin system". > > This plan provides real benefit to the ecosystem in solving a > number of longstanding problems in bitcoin. It improves the > scalability of bitcoin considerably. > > Furthermore it is time that we stop bikeshedding, start > implementing, and move forward, lest we lose more developers to > the toxic atmosphere this hard-fork debacle has created. Another +1 here. While I'd still like to see some sort of short-term bump happen this year - good points have been raised about SegWit uptake by wallet devs, for one thing - I really do think this is one of the last pieces of the puzzle that'll make Bitcoin reasonably stable and robust. If people have legitimate concerns, that's great, and they should be addressed. I just worry that more navel-gazing and bikeshedding will play into the hands of those with less than noble intentions. That and, due to the somewhat complicated nature of SegWit, it may take time to get skeptical miners and wallet devs on-boar d. While we're talking about capacity increases, I'd like to reiterate that I do think there should be some sort of short-term bump (Jeff's BIP 102 or his "BIP 202" variant, Dr. Back's 2/4/8 proposal ("BIP 248"), etc.), hopefully chosen by this summer so that everybody can start to prepare. I believe the KISS theory will work best. I talked to a couple of miners at Scaling Bitcoin. It was obvious they generally prefer simple solutions. (For that matter, if I put my miner's cap on, I prefer simple solutions too!) The research presented at Scaling Bitcoin regarding block size formulas was quite interesting and worthy of discussion. The research was also, IMO, nowhere near ready for consensus. Work and discussions on that front should certainly continue and push for a more permanent (final?) block size solution. I just think that, barring some extraordinary solution that hasn't been widely discussed yet, a permanent solution isn't feasible right now. A temporary bump isn't ideal. It's just the only thing I've seen that strikes me as having any real shot at consensus. - -- - --- Douglas Roark Cryptocurrency, network security, travel, and art. https://onename.com/droark joroark@vt.edu PGP key ID: 26623924 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJWd44sAAoJEEOBHRomYjkklUkP/AqnD4+oiNNNYRGDY3m0bQSG noUoRmWG/h86AW+2LuNYtn72UVefWJscUcmXWeOOem1KX49KdtCRWz3UZcrmfPUF h/ilOpYpjCN69nFBhpJPp+0Jqr/PjQpoZkUQ2G1BznGIcIo3jwh7H7dQeI6PMtLB qTbfdYEqPawb2kIhrCKVVQqsf7dLjg0Hlzvnq+xqyggZ1+k89kXSMEHJaybras7q DFj1lOhzktzAtxquzAMcctkZM3JvFMnKUwOP6zC+ke9YlmvU0Yhu74F+30/EClLc XGL5GMvUtvJcC0VRxDlh4pIW3m+eWjLWxvPQGe58eLE2u2Ja2MNjcuVtJdRgouLI VSPBrUKoGOGfNfsqJH9U9jsvRuQMvT6JFS3jjxiapgi+ip1O7+Pkbq6tO55Mz7Gd WMG71HdrLzZtjOzRmOFL5q3CkTpZp75tsXOYxn7jVcJlYJUh/jrnVMvSbPAT/VAY yJIPtWRj+jtMKAR9m4Lx+9N4F56OC3g0M749v31luoYZkKMl7ohgkONgpKhrDRBU uVmWH0pUIvaScsJxrUtgZdqn2AUqRowq6nM0YNDKo4go5/LyAkYYi1mICb0O0JJG mt+3fabix6biBPHZDAvKxKX5CAPDapno2adTBx7vY36evGdhI9sWA1jw91He8Zmw 8hwnRV7R8bPdkoIfnc8e =jJzD -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----