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 248F99B for ; Tue, 11 Aug 2015 17:47:59 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-wi0-f177.google.com (mail-wi0-f177.google.com [209.85.212.177]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 708A0265 for ; Tue, 11 Aug 2015 17:47:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: by wicne3 with SMTP id ne3so186994281wic.1 for ; Tue, 11 Aug 2015 10:47:57 -0700 (PDT) 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=GiLqGbK9aEqvirwtdU84zQp/jsqcVki3Hm9DAJtvxSg=; b=No4XsrIdlKB8igroXXhwpCTf9f274MtPvzBooE1eb+XM4S8un53CsnLoPMbuvLqEi2 iygVUKVdp1GQ2c8uJyvve6Sn89fuk6O/V55DxwrzxwlCsFPRo6OuX+ebJ74qzig8pUw+ LLnr5n1+z+D6/vp1TUeZVo9+jHZILCNh6haHXzTU11hHSgeJz7hJ4nK3bp+G+2xcSy77 b+vmLdw3W0ZSpkwWi5d6pt3h/wqb702aOCOWd9pDFjAQ1pIpeP5wSMEUX4OjylALAC03 WCAW5+HXzP5TrJuUkvTqsGRFoYRMb5adusB8yPB54xoloQi4POjyXHbmdAHXnw9gvtpC Gjhw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlNTiK9BC1iI1/4FndqtGKZdK4nnXeMgBAapDCL+MkbsLR62NQaKsLNx/Hm4ccy0Dp+HxSW MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.194.238.39 with SMTP id vh7mr56430041wjc.109.1439315276829; Tue, 11 Aug 2015 10:47:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.194.31.230 with HTTP; Tue, 11 Aug 2015 10:47:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.194.31.230 with HTTP; Tue, 11 Aug 2015 10:47:56 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <8181630.GdAj0CPZYc@coldstorage> References: <8181630.GdAj0CPZYc@coldstorage> Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2015 19:47:56 +0200 Message-ID: From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= To: Thomas Zander Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0141aa1acbad87051d0cb346 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,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] Fees and the block-finding process 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: Tue, 11 Aug 2015 17:47:59 -0000 --089e0141aa1acbad87051d0cb346 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Aug 11, 2015 12:14 AM, "Thomas Zander via bitcoin-dev" < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > On Monday 10. August 2015 13.55.03 Jorge Tim=C3=B3n via bitcoin-dev wrote= : > > Gavin, I interpret the absence of response to these questions as a > > sign that everybody agrees that there's no other reason to increase > > the consensus block size other than to avoid minimum market fees from > > rising (above zero). > > Feel free to correct that notion at any time by answering the > > questions yourself. > > In fact if any other "big block size advocate" thinks there's more > > reason I would like to hear their reasons too. > > See my various emails in the last hour. I've read them. I have read gavin's blog posts as well, several times. I still don't see what else can we fear from not increasing the size apart from fees maybe rising and making some problems that need to be solved rewardless of the size more visible (like a dumb unbounded mempool design). This discussion is frustrating for everyone. I could also say "This have been explained many times" and similar things, but that's not productive. I'm not trying to be obstinate, please, answer what else is to fear or admit that all your feas are just potential consequences of rising fees. With the risk of sounding condescending or aggressive...Really, is not that hard to answer questions directly and succinctly. We should all be friends with clarity. Only fear, uncertainty and doubt are enemies of clarity. But you guys on the "bigger blocks side" don't want to spread fud, do you? Please, prove paranoid people like me wrong on this point, for the good of this discussion. I really don't know how else to ask this without getting a link to something I have already read as a response. --089e0141aa1acbad87051d0cb346 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On Aug 11, 2015 12:14 AM, "Thomas Zander via bitcoin-dev" <bitcoin-dev@lists.lin= uxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Monday 10. August 2015 13.55.03 Jorge Tim=C3=B3n via bitcoin-dev wr= ote:
> > Gavin, I interpret the absence of response to these questions as = a
> > sign that everybody agrees that=C2=A0 there's no other reason= to increase
> > the consensus block size other than to avoid minimum market fees = from
> > rising (above zero).
> > Feel free to correct that notion at any time by answering the
> > questions yourself.
> > In fact if any other "big block size advocate" thinks t= here's more
> > reason I would like to hear their reasons too.
>
> See my various emails in the last hour.

I've read them. I have read gavin's blog posts as we= ll, several times.
I still don't see what else can we fear from not increasing the size ap= art from fees maybe rising and making some problems that need to be solved = rewardless of the size more visible (like a dumb unbounded mempool design).=

This discussion is frustrating for everyone. I could also sa= y "This have been explained many times" and similar things, but t= hat's not productive.
I'm not trying to be obstinate, please, answer what else is to fear or = admit that all your feas are just potential consequences of rising fees.

With the risk of sounding condescending or aggressive...Real= ly, is not that hard to answer questions directly and succinctly. We should= all be friends with clarity. Only fear, uncertainty and doubt are enemies = of clarity. But you guys on the "bigger blocks side" don't wa= nt to spread fud, do you?
Please, prove paranoid people like me wrong on this point, for the good of = this discussion. I really don't know how else to ask this without getti= ng a link to something I have already read as a response.

--089e0141aa1acbad87051d0cb346--