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 6BE31C58 for ; Wed, 8 Feb 2017 16:28:58 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-ua0-f177.google.com (mail-ua0-f177.google.com [209.85.217.177]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 41A1313C for ; Wed, 8 Feb 2017 16:28:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ua0-f177.google.com with SMTP id 96so113257773uaq.3 for ; Wed, 08 Feb 2017 08:28:57 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=q5ajy/aS9KDNSQhY2/m3O0tkFKINmEHAjUxvAPSAF74=; b=U3qrU96hRSz24ChkT4TFXRvaNj/BIhp6Mr1v1pHLvYAsArcdHETz6QfHbVT+/Rk5vV GUFHLL73xaCdDrLcLs4M8p0yLJFsGpzq0r+7JSmx0wDlxhiaZNyCLdMimRTKzs2/4qc2 weS6QpB+9XwmCxYwYThvK5QfPkI6Cvx5NuimZlD/1RBo+Tyo1KVcwqW4sFcXmwqG+Y1w 0amML4f25pr+BOZ/+f4Pe/gIhzZovbpn6C8j4YC/kXgJ+06uDWhwfxJarfU8j8cIp4hq uK3+X2hKTDp3Rhj9ktEhwaycBNWAq09OmtCjLdJVQfHvC7ZnxjV9GltwdKivsrc2fpoZ goBw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=q5ajy/aS9KDNSQhY2/m3O0tkFKINmEHAjUxvAPSAF74=; b=uP43Se/dzZW9xLehkXQiknpfiSPPLzzDFWgaqiq3SCxm2ziDvb/+T9FMBXDL3u24mq FSR7Ur3vVtDrR3S64bvD6QEBiRg9KbOw3e9QwSwCHb7iQlLxNTkgJLAIgkSOO/SEeuBo ymPabNx7OqbdMd4u+FoShsRndYbf1N2Hb4/uIOyJApoq69o3J0W1LcV615m/m8qSReuJ dvL1rYZMY42AmiCMbkYJe6wKF2gyT8xowVJzbSpqPXehDqWO6NRfuZfWEI9RZSkrvwj7 Kj+82AOJVglWvSgFegp3k07zQnfotZJjTe7xu1kSfA8sPnU4qFIt0pRTrHWS/dsoFEju 4zlA== X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXJ/Y98TxEkcP2dbeMxXk7bMzvXnIEymB+8PSPnlnyT1NFSipd4qCU4fx0iLE7ZBNy/WefyBR3EKljJhmg== X-Received: by 10.159.37.71 with SMTP id 65mr8970528uaz.134.1486571336357; Wed, 08 Feb 2017 08:28:56 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.103.152.19 with HTTP; Wed, 8 Feb 2017 08:28:55 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.103.152.19 with HTTP; Wed, 8 Feb 2017 08:28:55 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <201702052302.29599.luke@dashjr.org> <201702061953.40774.luke@dashjr.org> From: Andrew Johnson Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2017 10:28:55 -0600 Message-ID: To: alp alp Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c12308a6fdd290548075cad X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT,FREEMAIL_FROM, HTML_MESSAGE, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM autolearn=no version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 10 Feb 2017 10:23:41 +0000 Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] A Modified Version of Luke-jr's Block Size BIP X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2017 16:28:58 -0000 --94eb2c12308a6fdd290548075cad Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 It is when you're talking about making a choice and 6.3x more people prefer something else. Doing nothing is a choice as well. Put another way, if 10% supported increasing the 21M coin cap and 63% were against, would you seriously consider doing it? On Feb 8, 2017 9:57 AM, "alp alp" wrote: > 10% is not a tiny minority. > > On Feb 8, 2017 9:51 AM, "Andrew Johnson" > wrote: > >> You're never going to reach 100% agreement, and stifling the network >> literally forever to please a tiny minority is daft. >> >> On Feb 8, 2017 8:52 AM, "alp alp via bitcoin-dev" < >> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: >> >> 10% say literally never. That seems like a significant >> disenfranchisement and lack of consensus. >> >> On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 2:25 PM, t. khan via bitcoin-dev < >> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: >> >>> On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 2:53 PM, Luke Dashjr wrote: >>> >>>> On Monday, February 06, 2017 6:19:43 PM you wrote: >>>> > >My BIP draft didn't make progress because the community opposes any >>>> block >>>> > >size increase hardfork ever. >>>> > >>>> > Luke, how do you know the community opposes that? Specifically, how >>>> did you >>>> > come to this conclusion? >>>> >>>> http://www.strawpoll.me/12228388/r >>> >>> >>> That poll shows 63% of votes want a larger than 1 MB block by this >>> summer. How do you go from that to "the community opposes any block >>> increase ever"? It shows the exact opposite of that. >>> >>> >>>> > >Your version doesn't address the current block size >>>> > >issues (ie, the blocks being too large). >>>> > >>>> > Why do you think blocks are "too large"? Please cite some evidence. >>>> I've >>>> > asked this before and you ignored it, but an answer would be helpful >>>> to the >>>> > discussion. >>>> >>>> Full node count is far below the safe minimum of 85% of economic >>>> activity. >>>> >>> >>> Is this causing a problem now? If so, what? >>> >>> >>>> Typically reasons given for people not using full nodes themselves come >>>> down >>>> to the high resource requirements caused by the block size. >>> >>> >>> The reason people stop running nodes is because there's no incentive to >>> counteract the resource costs. Attempting to solve this by making blocks >>> *smaller* is like curing a disease by killing the patient. (Incentivizing >>> full node operation would fix that problem.) >>> >>> - t.k. >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> bitcoin-dev mailing list >>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org >>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> bitcoin-dev mailing list >> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org >> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev >> >> >> --94eb2c12308a6fdd290548075cad Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
It is when you're talking about making a choice and 6= .3x more people prefer something else. Doing nothing is a choice as well.
Put another way, if 10% support= ed increasing the 21M coin cap and 63% were against, would you seriously co= nsider doing it?

On Feb 8, 2017 9:57 AM, "alp alp" <alp.bitcoin@gmail.com> wrote:
10% is not a ti= ny minority.

On Feb 8, 2017 9:51 AM, "Andrew Johnson" <andrew.johnson83@gmail.com= > wrote:
You're never going to reach 100% agreement, and stifling= the network literally forever to please a tiny minority is daft.

On Feb 8, 2017 8:52 AM,= "alp alp via bitcoin-dev" <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfounda= tion.org> wrote:
10% say literall= y never.=C2=A0 That seems like a significant disenfranchisement and lack of= consensus.

=
On M= on, Feb 6, 2017 at 2:25 PM, t. khan via bitcoin-dev <<= a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">b= itcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 2:53 = PM, Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org> wrote:
On Monday, February 06, 2017 6:19:43 PM you w= rote:
> >My BIP draft didn't make progress because the community oppose= s any block
> >size increase hardfork ever.
>
> Luke, how do yo= u know the community opposes that? Specifically, how did you
> come to this conclusion?

http://www.strawpoll.me/12228388/r

That poll shows 63% of votes want a larger than 1 MB blo= ck by this summer. How do you go from that to "the community opposes a= ny block increase ever"? It shows the exact opposite of that.
=C2= =A0
> >Your version doesn't address the current block size
> >issues (ie, the blocks being too large).
>
> Why do you think blocks are "too large"? Please cite some ev= idence. I've
> asked this before and you ignored it, but an answer would be helpful t= o the
> discussion.

Full node count is far below the safe minimum of 85% of econo= mic activity.

Is this causing a problem= now? If so, what?
=C2=A0
Typically reasons given for people not using full nodes themselves come dow= n
to the high resource requirements caused by the block size.

The reason people stop running nodes is because there'= s no incentive to counteract the resource costs. Attempting to solve this b= y making blocks *smaller* is like curing a disease by killing the patient. = (Incentivizing full node operation would fix that problem.)
<= br>
- t.k.


_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
= bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org= /mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev



_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
= bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org= /mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev


--94eb2c12308a6fdd290548075cad--