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 3C97A10A4 for ; Sat, 6 Feb 2016 17:09:23 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-vk0-f46.google.com (mail-vk0-f46.google.com [209.85.213.46]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ADB0013E for ; Sat, 6 Feb 2016 17:09:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-vk0-f46.google.com with SMTP id k196so7331848vka.0 for ; Sat, 06 Feb 2016 09:09:22 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=jtimon-cc.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=JiaQ5FIs3J2oI8E0pSMfnmp//v4ujE4AZF6P7Jz3JCM=; b=XIWml1shD7Ie5g02qQ1QG3BMNcWXOd+zvM/h8ZdFrrvJb6HNP/hDFwMwLzWFzd2TTm apVIa0StFabAO179v8dUK9FA0gEzVz/0/Akw7yivDtoNtgYaUtUh0Q8F3Zj9GgA39sUe GjGaBUZCjaOx27ENrrweFSjUR/itIsafH89QcFAFLzKVj6y7jxCKCm4M3Y+S1JbBz/S8 tX6FNw0U2nE93CXweEOKrnaFxyHcSOxnhDIZ8bYFEatORuZ7/HxCfA0RGAnEtehcJYLh s0SV7TG4lClPmg6RQaBWoy7aPYx2mEeC2Ccy88op0SMHPz32wgmprreexUEX9xDERzTW fWAg== 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=JiaQ5FIs3J2oI8E0pSMfnmp//v4ujE4AZF6P7Jz3JCM=; b=IdxX47OtSyEZ62sDGRaSJoYb/GhUG03FtEskhxRc430Z044tfQmjOgeGyr5YI0wMVd 4VieCyKm3whwAtzwmu4pLlHWsaA1eY+keMZHhIVXZBUEZQV7Esk3kwuPL9X92+z0Uhm3 voa4dqRzNNQFalEdxP06pH5zThKlZbewfMe/2SVDfz1UxBSsX2wACdc7blGJbKmeWY8t rNxbd00fr1Wx7X06r5LT84i20xq0a9HrdxsPq+7GJw1czzvnF5fsCL/3q5RJmT/Y6KtH 30EME1AjyQjkk7yopGCu1r0tpZASySHk8WKsRA8dYv0yYwRUgx/1ajqJg2Pxf++yKOKh bi9g== X-Gm-Message-State: AG10YOSJIaw/oMC34cHkPek31RATqiECtS/yWv24yGF7pTztVvg2ZKMonqtItp78/XFWEFUtgzVIsRs03g8cwA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.31.16.153 with SMTP id 25mr13491501vkq.143.1454778561871; Sat, 06 Feb 2016 09:09:21 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.31.141.73 with HTTP; Sat, 6 Feb 2016 09:09:21 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.31.141.73 with HTTP; Sat, 6 Feb 2016 09:09:21 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <201602060012.26728.luke@dashjr.org> Date: Sat, 6 Feb 2016 18:09:21 +0100 Message-ID: From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= To: Gavin Andresen Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11433b906855b1052b1d07df X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,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] BIP proposal: Increase block size limit to 2 megabytes 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, 06 Feb 2016 17:09:23 -0000 --001a11433b906855b1052b1d07df Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Feb 6, 2016 16:37, "Gavin Andresen" wrote: > > Responding to "28 days is not long enough" : Any thoughts on the "95% better than 75%" and "grace period before miner coordination instead of after" comments ? > I suspect there ARE a significant percentage of un-maintained full nodes-- probably 30 to 40%. Losing those nodes will not be a problem, for three reasons: None of the reasons you list say anything about the fact that "being lost" (kicked out of the network) is a problem for those node's users. > I strongly disagree with the statement that there is no cost to a longer grace period. I didn't say that. > To bring it back to bitcoin-dev territory: are there any TECHNICAL arguments why an upgrade would take a business or individual longer than 28 days? Their own software stack may require more work to integrate the new rules or their resources may not be immediately available to focus on this within 28 days they hadn't planned. I believe it wold be less controversial to chose something that nobody can deny is more than plenty of time for everyone to implement the changes like, say, 1 year. I wouldn't personally oppose to something shorter like 6 months for really simple changes, but I don't see how 28 can ever be considered uncontroversial and safe for everyone. Just trying to help in removing controversy from the PR, but if you still think 28 can be safe and uncontroversial, feel free to ignore these comments on the concrete length and please let me know what you think about the other points I raised. --001a11433b906855b1052b1d07df Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On Feb 6, 2016 16:37, "Gavin Andresen" <gavinandresen@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Responding to "28 days is not long enough" :

Any thoughts on the "95% better than 75%" and &quo= t;grace period before miner coordination instead of after" comments ?<= /p>

> I suspect there ARE a significant percentage of un-main= tained full nodes-- probably 30 to 40%. Losing those nodes will not be a pr= oblem, for three reasons:

None of the reasons you list say anything about the fact tha= t "being lost" (kicked out of the network) is a problem for those= node's users.

> I strongly disagree with the statement that there is no= cost to a longer grace period.

I didn't say that.

> To bring it back to bitcoin-dev territory: =C2=A0are th= ere any TECHNICAL arguments why an upgrade would take a business or individ= ual longer than 28 days?

Their own software stack may require more work to integrate = the new rules or their resources may not be immediately available to focus = on this within 28 days they hadn't planned.

I believe it wold be less controversial to chose something t= hat nobody can deny is more than plenty of time for everyone=C2=A0 to imple= ment the changes like, say, 1 year. I wouldn't personally oppose to som= ething shorter like 6 months for really simple changes, but I don't see= how 28 can ever be considered uncontroversial and safe for everyone. Just = trying to help in removing controversy from the PR, but if you still think = 28 can be safe and uncontroversial, feel free to ignore these comments on t= he concrete length and please let me know what you think about the other po= ints I raised.

--001a11433b906855b1052b1d07df--