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 9697EBA9 for ; Wed, 8 Feb 2017 15:51:26 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-vk0-f45.google.com (mail-vk0-f45.google.com [209.85.213.45]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F061B19B for ; Wed, 8 Feb 2017 15:51:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-vk0-f45.google.com with SMTP id r136so103669949vke.1 for ; Wed, 08 Feb 2017 07:51:25 -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=VvmEHfs3lAQe00J2Qmk9m2jBZLB7IWJoGkWiCT7Bj7A=; b=f7uVmL21cS7HLKeDiLNpUJJiv4e/9ktgjp1udN4Um/nbFT80arIR1Mte3aG/f91A4S MTv3o0PNKa2a3F/w60bTNM9bi/n89cuZ0NR9+FeVOScctmOTghLRLbT3o0Zc7Gz6b/l5 kXPU5+KJ2y5s+luYK0H+DQsdRpQjrjNPnuqXhMidOpz5Se1PfTbDeLgHuQ5gej5uPl0q RcCDwJgjSWdxYfAM5343lnRHnfJWgcZf7EvCDzeOWKGgw5XYD4u+YDySwWmLUxRthBfG IsZmDpyxqcI6sC2vcaktyegf92XSEL6AsF+GEmOMLRzUZObcxxwfvvrxhpB6vdF7XSB9 1OYw== 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=VvmEHfs3lAQe00J2Qmk9m2jBZLB7IWJoGkWiCT7Bj7A=; b=fupss2xSvwwLBAE9xCzNUHSIs1TNN2Tq1GA8MrTzQG2qYOSXTCeTmVD+JzBK5wTQMg bKq8ig8s9KrlE24wF8YJ5kud533k9RftQ8NNft+jMcWGo8aiYGQV32jdxL3vmTeWuKI/ 9d2JMtq4DhzeUKtyYPbT3bx473Rw2yME093Sp/qcK1jhKNuUdcgWgxniQK3AEqRPUpuc Q0wBLGibtMczuP4d4v1pZVUrr6sljUTCnwYtMh0LVypLIkCAjzEeazUcgRO/0q3seYJF /K2YtSRpxrA+dyTeixonDKTTWHtn4pZ6ET4V8ujD/zx0S9lKxBn4sIlXE04xb1NZ+j2X Ydgg== X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39mgAPynSUynX9JBcy2PJOjh3UfVMJjmKS1RrH2L3Wz6eEZUxzgbEI8Udac7fVKlbt4KkaXo7mImHp06jA== X-Received: by 10.31.218.68 with SMTP id r65mr10351786vkg.27.1486569084992; Wed, 08 Feb 2017 07:51:24 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.103.152.19 with HTTP; Wed, 8 Feb 2017 07:51:24 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.103.152.19 with HTTP; Wed, 8 Feb 2017 07:51:24 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <201702052302.29599.luke@dashjr.org> <201702061953.40774.luke@dashjr.org> From: Andrew Johnson Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2017 09:51:24 -0600 Message-ID: To: alp alp , Bitcoin Dev Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c07b01c3ec663054806d6f8 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 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 15:51:26 -0000 --94eb2c07b01c3ec663054806d6f8 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 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 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 --94eb2c07b01c3ec663054806d6f8 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
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.=C2=A0 That seems like a significant disenfranchise= ment and lack of consensus.

On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 2:25 PM,= t. khan via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linux= foundation.org> wrote:
On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 2= :53 PM, Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org> wrote:
<= span class=3D"m_-8603678674590328520m_5903971323563278916gmail-">On Monday,= February 06, 2017 6:19:43 PM you wrote:
> >My BIP draft didn't make progress because the community oppose= s any block
> >size increase hardfork ever.
>
> Luke, how do you know the community opposes that? Specifica= lly, 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


--94eb2c07b01c3ec663054806d6f8--