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 9F91C5A5 for ; Fri, 31 Jul 2015 21:30:52 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-wi0-f171.google.com (mail-wi0-f171.google.com [209.85.212.171]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 07341115 for ; Fri, 31 Jul 2015 21:30:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: by wicmv11 with SMTP id mv11so72213567wic.0 for ; Fri, 31 Jul 2015 14:30:50 -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=9YlVF4Ov9/+9YO853LcP9LIXp/6ny8VK4Mv720aktUU=; b=YhHlBB5AYtyNpt+I8c69uZhMNkI5mc9luzzBg9DxA88zXpI/2eeoDylxlWLaZAIcXi YHaTt/JJCxjZIqA34zJUEuXo0cdCl9YpgVQ+++d5hMiyfckC2DIiViamJrZ+9EM5hBE9 Ifs2PWa11ifl47JszOayLNdZqdybsuTq2RQGIh2tgSLcSbT9BGDwlXi89AHPoWE+xsh7 3QojqBLj7QkyuOiH/7wRWmPnAu9cfD9KRYvT0PicsbuWXNPnJk0a+dOkrExRqJUgWL58 J5piDpvMxPORqOtkg+WVHWyM+mXS+SSqXXnZqNwosYismVGcng52yIk1kCxNfFrgsSlO M8dQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkMbWvEtz36Oo3/H9vSqiop1ohEra2WLL7ZP91+gjphMEuEgkieFoDFJDsbVXLBc3FaDoka MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.194.122.97 with SMTP id lr1mr1543983wjb.26.1438378250685; Fri, 31 Jul 2015 14:30:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.194.95.168 with HTTP; Fri, 31 Jul 2015 14:30:50 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <55BABE17.7050900@bitcoins.info> References: <1B7F00D3-41AE-44BF-818D-EC4EF279DC11@gmail.com> <37D282C2-EF9C-4B8B-91E8-7D613B381824@phauna.org> <55B94FAD.7040205@mail.bihthai.net> <74767203-7F7A-4848-9923-DE1DE60A28B4@gmail.com> <25FD9AAD-99F5-4322-AF34-243F75AE82C4@gmail.com> <55BABE17.7050900@bitcoins.info> Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2015 23:30:50 +0200 Message-ID: From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= To: Milly Bitcoin Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,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] Why Satoshi's temporary anti-spam measure isn't temporary 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: Fri, 31 Jul 2015 21:30:52 -0000 On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 2:15 AM, Milly Bitcoin via bitcoin-dev wrote: > These are the types of things I have been discussing in relation to a > process: > > -A list of metrics > -A Risk analysis of the baseline system. Bitcoin as it is now. > -Mitigation strategies for each risk. > -A set of goals. > -A Road map for each goal that lists the changes or possible avenues to > achieve that goal. > > Proposed changes would be measured against the same metrics and a risk > analysis done so it can be compared with the baseline. > > For example, the block size debate would be discussed in the context of a > road map related to a goal of increase scaling. One of the metrics would be > a decentralization metric. (A framework for a decentralization metric is at > http://www.hks.harvard.edu/fs/pnorris/Acrobat/stm103%20articles/Schneider_Decentralization.pdf). > Cost would be one aspect of the decentralization metric. All this sounds very reasonable and useful. And if a formal organization owns this "process", that's fine as well. I still think hardforks need to be uncontroversial (using the vague "I will know it when I see it" defintion) and no individual or organization can be an "ultimate decider" or otherwise Bitcoin losses all it's p2p nature (and this seems the point where you, Milly, and I disagree). But metrics and data tend to help when it comes to "I will know it when I see it" and "evidences". So, yes, by all means, let's have an imperfect decentralization metric rather than not having anything to compare proposals. Competing decentralization metrics can appear later: we need a first one first. I would add that we should have sets of simulations being used to calculate some of those metrics, but maybe I'm just going too deep into details.