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 DB75E91A for ; Sat, 14 Nov 2015 21:45:32 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.17.21]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 12C27140 for ; Sat, 14 Nov 2015 21:45:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.67] ([108.180.183.65]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx102) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0M7DVi-1aI1Co3KAo-00x4s5; Sat, 14 Nov 2015 22:45:29 +0100 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2104\)) From: Peter R In-Reply-To: Date: Sat, 14 Nov 2015 13:45:25 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: To: =?utf-8?Q?Emin_G=C3=BCn_Sirer?= X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2104) Sender: Peter_R@gmx.com X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:XKoLv61+5kmoOIY3bl/USChqHem2Ohop4h3Sc3GK26vqV2gZ+M+ 3OgQhlNU14nPeWbunfn5KB8O68GhWI4hMFpOeOOOJHJ4HSsSJLwuXWmGm9PW2fZe7Ho8mKa LYVkbiurbxbLOsR4jkBPxG9o8RxkSF8XcEuVLrQW5RglB9UIF+Dpok+e5EMis8yM/Wo9K9/ dvFfS3dfCXlx+zfzkl22g== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:hW4rCNdEWgc=:0vb/a+9JcVxyyOMlrwOqXn WnA0gIv8TDI+bFRKbQfUeJcLS5VnSrh8YjqPVTIpvEMl6HhSzPvgg/YRxEocg+g4rh1CbN62B el/NuybSWmEaWOcs3BZC05YvQhVTb5WvOOcNQtx4YjAqF7gevYcPa0v22hJnrj/PCVbABTV0I kDnZ0X8nZjTMmHELeyWcWlXsc84z71rUOaItdJX4qXau8rUcIbtIvBgosty45F7K/MU8ImBns Gb5XtJSabN0nvuMtSJppPvlglV6BUFIrNWSX9/xRTJzHsO1z4pa6r8v9yu/3fASnqtN3ZB8Cl /d9XimmE2/yxU8mbh5gUrpce057vPZys0XM5DjLhfnIPddxGQwFhl2+8kZbsSo/kyEQ2mb2Hp oCj0oD/YaIDGbNUD/HOfdICxcEELRQv3jRqw2tprvX9iUKvTy+8+TIflnSODRCsPOWlDgi8DS APhyPoNeZz3TLeguRauOgsze3OWoVKvLm+FXA2dkIztdTplcPQCKTbO86t8yZTne3GQx2WGen Bh/kTJRpXySY9b4qFom3JHc5WW44FRlYInw7eqE6TyVjDrmUnmyg/LJnZqlBAnuyA6CrB21uu EZowM2nLWjxgLA2bLXKER+fbX5OlisTWbjfB+bHq+A4ox4cdTAQapDr42RLMJbxlK334nhSQy uzkHJL0KteMi+uOflCct1UWPXozdF00vtz0qCF+0p08d6YJO0jSsSuoCRKzX7dkR/ysxWafPu IP3Afkga1qCApGEQx+Rt/5vhVRvAv0ZoiaDWltItR4Zijhs8taa70jgs70qx/LF21S6uWG7Cd MgwaCO9 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM, 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 Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] How to evaluate block size increase suggestions. 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: Sat, 14 Nov 2015 21:45:33 -0000 > It looks like some specific meta-level criteria would help more at = this point than new proposals all exploring a different variants of = block size increase schedules. I agree. In fact, I=E2=80=99ll go meta on your meta and suggest that we = should first discuss how Bitcoin should be governed in the first place. = Should Bitcoin evolve from the =E2=80=9Cbottom up,=E2=80=9D or from the = =E2=80=9Ctop down=E2=80=9D? If one=E2=80=99s answer is from the =E2=80=9Ctop-down,=E2=80=9D then the = meta-level criteria can be endlessly debated, for they all involve some = sort of tradeoff, they all require some sort of compromise. The =E2=80=9C= top down=E2=80=9D perspective holds that people might make poor choices = if given the freedom to easily do so--it holds that the trade-offs must = be balanced instead by experts. =20 However, if one's answer is from the =E2=80=9Cbottom up,=E2=80=9D then = the meta-level criteria is very easy: we do what the people wants. We = allow the people to weigh the tradeoffs and then we watch as consensus = emerges through a decentralized process, objectively represented by the = longest proof-of-work chain. =20 Regarding the block size limit debate, at the end of the day it comes = down to two things: 1. How big of a block will my node accept today? 2. What do I want my node to do if the longest chain includes a block = larger than the limit I set? If one concedes that Bitcoin should be governed from the =E2=80=9Cbottom = up,=E2=80=9D then it is already possible to empower each node operator = to more easily express his free choice regarding the size of blocks he = is willing to accept, while simultaneously ensuring that his node tracks = consensus. Best regards, Peter