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 7B8D011E7 for ; Sun, 27 Dec 2015 00:13:42 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-io0-f175.google.com (mail-io0-f175.google.com [209.85.223.175]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 838F0CC for ; Sun, 27 Dec 2015 00:13:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-io0-f175.google.com with SMTP id 186so284270262iow.0 for ; Sat, 26 Dec 2015 16:13:41 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=i5PSYZ+aqxlBwq3+oslFgmPQar2j/8b4wjCk3KYeKJk=; b=T1kN73tsUHY47Id5awR0RTIF9rzwjCTtJD2y/7zMm7qwDLhHi84J4vyeeHCJIC+Fu7 P9wOT0YoR9ClfViaUxBUJMXKc8X2Gp9fvFqOvhWFL2lGMU4b+nJrIVl18jHO1C99VRvE DOAvT3tW9KhBtivU8jng2dWgSxFdP+eCqGkcKTAu2OmG4HLvzOZttmzpSvcbxZ3/rK1N qexU9805keHuxMwBO8eUwU8Dv7YSuCzR2tUAQi1DgyTboE7p+3H7y/xRjSz9E2LJlGAb yItuT6j/Rd3SV6OuYMXIHGOFGahXlhkj0eaQlY714FtqXrxNAtgqEnJe6/zUKkK9doN4 +/7g== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.107.62.136 with SMTP id l130mr32543934ioa.28.1451175221072; Sat, 26 Dec 2015 16:13:41 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.36.66.132 with HTTP; Sat, 26 Dec 2015 16:13:40 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <567F1F7A.6070700@openbitcoinprivacyproject.org> References: <751DFAA9-9013-4C54-BC1E-5F7ECB7469CC@gmail.com> <246AA3BE-570D-4B88-A63D-AC76CB2B0CB8@toom.im> <567F1F7A.6070700@openbitcoinprivacyproject.org> Date: Sat, 26 Dec 2015 18:13:40 -0600 Message-ID: From: Bryan Bishop To: Justus Ranvier , Bryan Bishop Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c0883e08f1a400527d60fe0 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,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 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Block size: It's economics & user preparation & moral hazard 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: Sun, 27 Dec 2015 00:13:42 -0000 --94eb2c0883e08f1a400527d60fe0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Sat, Dec 26, 2015 at 5:15 PM, Justus Ranvier via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > On 12/26/2015 05:01 PM, Pieter Wuille via bitcoin-dev wrote: > > I think the shortest reasonable timeframe for an uncontroversial > > hardfork is somewhere in the range between 6 and 12 months. > > This argument would hold more weight if it didn't looks like a stalling > tactic in context. > I think you'll find that there hasn't been stalling regarding an uncontroversial hard-fork deployment. You might be confusing an uncontroversial hard-fork decision instead with how developers have brought up many issues about various (hard-forking) block size proposals.... I suspect this is what you're intending to mention instead, given your mention of "capacity emergencies" and also the subject line. > 6 months ago, there was a concerted effort to being the process then, > for exactly this reason. > The uncontroversial hard-fork proposals from 6 months ago were mostly along the lines of jtimon's proposals, which were not about capacity. (Although, I should say "almost entirely uncontroversial"-- obviously has been some minor (and in my opinion, entirely solvable) disagreement regarding prioritization of deploying a jtimon's uncontroversial hard-fork idea I guess, seeing as how it has not yet happened.) > After 6 months of denial, stonewalling, and generally unproductive > fighting, the need for proactivity is being acknowledged with no > reference to the delay. > There wasn't 6 months of "stonewalling" or "denial" about an uncontroversial hard-fork proposal. There has been extensive discussion regarding the controversial (flawed?) properties of other (block size) proposals. But that's something else. Much of this has been rehashed ad nauseum on this mailing list already... thankfully I think your future emails could be improved and made more useful if you were to read the mailing list archives, try to employ more careful reasoning, etc. Thanks. > If the network ever ends up making a hasty forced upgrade to solve a > capacity emergency the responsibility for that difficulty will not fall > on those who did their best to prevent emergency upgrades by planning > ahead. > ("Capacity emergency" is too ambiguous in this context because of the competing concerns and tradeoffs regarding transaction rate capacity exhaustion vs. p2p low-bandwidth node bandwidth exhaustion.) - Bryan http://heybryan.org/ 1 512 203 0507 --94eb2c0883e08f1a400527d60fe0 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On S= at, Dec 26, 2015 at 5:15 PM, Justus Ranvier via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
On 12/26/2015 05:01 PM, Pieter Wuille via bitc= oin-dev wrote:
> I think the shortest reasonable timeframe for an uncontroversial
> hardfork is somewhere in the range between 6 and 12 months.

This argument would hold more weight if it didn't looks like a s= talling
tactic in context.

I think you'll f= ind that there hasn't been stalling regarding an uncontroversial hard-f= ork deployment. You might be confusing an uncontroversial hard-fork decisio= n instead with how developers have brought up many issues about various (ha= rd-forking) block size proposals.... I suspect this is what you're inte= nding to mention instead, given your mention of "capacity emergencies&= quot; and also the subject line.
=C2=A0
6 months ago, there was a concerted effort to being the process then,
for exactly this reason.

The uncontrove= rsial hard-fork proposals from 6 months ago were mostly along the lines of = jtimon's proposals, which were not about capacity. (Although, I should = say "almost entirely uncontroversial"-- obviously has been some m= inor (and in my opinion, entirely solvable) disagreement regarding prioriti= zation of deploying a jtimon's uncontroversial hard-fork idea I guess, = seeing as how it has not yet happened.)
=C2=A0
After 6 months of denial, stonewalling, and generally unproductive
fighting, the need for proactivity is being acknowledged with no
reference to the delay.

There wasn'= t 6 months of "stonewalling" or "denial" about an uncon= troversial hard-fork proposal. There has been extensive discussion regardin= g the controversial (flawed?) properties of other (block size) proposals. B= ut that's something else. Much of this has been rehashed ad nauseum=C2= =A0on this mailing list already... =C2=A0thankfully I think your future ema= ils could be improved and made more useful if you were to read the mailing = list archives, try to employ more careful reasoning, etc. Thanks.
=C2=A0
If the network ever ends up making a hasty fo= rced upgrade to solve a
capacity emergency the responsibility for that difficulty will not fall
on those who did their best to prevent emergency upgrades by planning ahead= .

("Capacity emergency" is too ambiguou= s in this context because of the competing concerns and tradeoffs regarding= transaction rate capacity exhaustion vs. p2p low-bandwidth node bandwidth = exhaustion.)

- Bryan
http://heybryan.org/1 512 203 0507
--94eb2c0883e08f1a400527d60fe0--