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 4FD40484 for ; Thu, 23 Jul 2015 18:57:06 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-oi0-f49.google.com (mail-oi0-f49.google.com [209.85.218.49]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2CAE41C9 for ; Thu, 23 Jul 2015 18:57:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: by oige126 with SMTP id e126so1985944oig.0 for ; Thu, 23 Jul 2015 11:57:04 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=vinumeris.com; s=google; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=5UTanXv+Mre2QK9yp4JWmLpsgxW4a36EOynAXqlNC88=; b=S21xfRtSN4orR1wwPgU44KrqS0PZs6INnsAxi7NU/sO8DksH6/+V12GDAUEg8VARBV NyQCN387OzmFfutHMhcfymzXI6TOF8qe5M8f+ZHIt5KFMZ0FKjw0xHW6zDWUeqlzahSO E0U98qlQZ4E83s5/AfezqhiEeYfzuLZhlib2s= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=5UTanXv+Mre2QK9yp4JWmLpsgxW4a36EOynAXqlNC88=; b=cvvql8dU5QLFwPOfdOZq0XcvZ3dbeHPa4s6wL+z2RY9vuGTUzJHPqYy3xtZprC89qR w0dlpeJGW4cb4olOurzc54wfR18sx9AMgaxL/dTNR4na808LEY/yKeDJqiBnkQj4so4u Ou2FB5y/sjZ8VvuHYdsCx39+7WDw7jx7uQ9aj/MtGx0ttgUu7DMTLfJd3j6ZfmKQsMFg gNGd8fxBTDsGEQOFZGza4lUo3TTZGvhZukCo5qUALqjuzj+1g0O9jV5X+D2zngmnpNJV pGarleb2+imNjvOt5vaYBQn0TT/1QLLZZKnNAs+zFsMUSHkByMLMmyGDI+zhL6JD4ojv VItg== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQldtiB798pwmSPwAmU3J/qs83kh2rIyCF2T0wn0PWpXlBQKLQujepnamjDREpp36/H8m0IZ MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.202.67.67 with SMTP id q64mr10500034oia.124.1437677824513; Thu, 23 Jul 2015 11:57:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.50.108.111 with HTTP; Thu, 23 Jul 2015 11:57:04 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <55B113AF.40500@thinlink.com> Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 20:57:04 +0200 Message-ID: From: Mike Hearn To: Slurms MacKenzie Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113dd3d6082dcf051b8f7426 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HTML_MESSAGE,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] Bitcoin Core and hard forks 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: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 18:57:06 -0000 --001a113dd3d6082dcf051b8f7426 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > You complained about the lack of quantitative analysis being used, I gave > it to you. There's nothing "negative" about displaying data which doesn't > completely back up what your position is, I made a sensible conclusion > based on the facts I have in front of me. Ignoring the information I > collected and presented for you is incredibly childish. > He hasn't ignored you, and he wasn't responding to your email specifically but rather the general attitude displayed in this forum for the last several months (and I'd argue the last year or so). Your data is interesting but ultimately tell us what we already know - that the next bottleneck after the hard coded limit could easily be propagation speed. The solution is likely to be a better protocol. Matt's custom network already has optimised things, rolling some of those ideas into the P2P protocol may be a good place to start, or something fancier like IBLTs. Regardless, the *next* bottleneck is not the protocol, it's the hard cap. So the conclusion remains unchanged: Bitcoin must grow, and solutions for scaling it up will be found as the need arises. --001a113dd3d6082dcf051b8f7426 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
You complained about the lack of quantitative an= alysis being used, I gave it to you. There's nothing "negative&quo= t; about displaying data which doesn't completely back up what your pos= ition is, I made a sensible conclusion based on the facts I have in front o= f me. Ignoring the information I collected and presented for you is incredi= bly childish.

He hasn't ignored you= , and he wasn't responding to your email specifically but rather the ge= neral attitude displayed in this forum for the last several months (and I&#= 39;d argue the last year or so).

Your data is inte= resting but ultimately tell us what we already know - that the next bottlen= eck after the hard coded limit could easily be propagation speed. The solut= ion is likely to be a better protocol. Matt's custom network already ha= s optimised things, rolling some of those ideas into the P2P protocol may b= e a good place to start, or something fancier like IBLTs.

Regardless, the next=C2=A0bottleneck is not the protocol, it= 's the hard cap.

So the conclusion remains unc= hanged: Bitcoin must grow, and solutions for scaling it up will be found as= the need arises.
--001a113dd3d6082dcf051b8f7426--