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 554E0710 for ; Thu, 23 Jul 2015 18:12:35 +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 8F172A9 for ; Thu, 23 Jul 2015 18:12:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: by wibxm9 with SMTP id xm9so219922467wib.0 for ; Thu, 23 Jul 2015 11:12:33 -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=nnLsewH8ImOO5dD4Hk6P76AQ6AvvLz+3GOJs1B0zcjA=; b=Z6e5njCSExIComgfgwkSQyysoiJ03vxL5br/uiUjGyFZ6QGiRCkyPBxcYj1Q5pOV2J DiZKC2ejmsAixnS8YJ0kkyP5xYAS/jgzl7+G4ooTk+Uifu4TTo19NfUuUsxDZwrGbwQ9 iNG3mjjiGFUbYedN3QLyH+W6HnHDfkSQc3v1bFcgNOSxWNgQcrb1lD9Ra1yaiFjOpSQV QnY9eFIA451CSGBScJ7Ciz8mI06vK8J0BFBiA4E6LxrPRO75hERiYr2LDt6cine2Kojl mp6M8shZ20NAdcRqMuUMdrsZXmlR91I4OLc503MfGP4V7FzJ3ZD6Ux+9sIl+2G+H0j2R rTNA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmrLhyXhl8Q5yTgRcxWuMGzMm9QHU0FXCX3KTGVNn7iKgxQqpTQlqB6heqZByLl5D6VINwD MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.180.109.6 with SMTP id ho6mr55674160wib.58.1437675153392; Thu, 23 Jul 2015 11:12:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.194.95.168 with HTTP; Thu, 23 Jul 2015 11:12:33 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 20:12:33 +0200 Message-ID: From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= To: Cory Fields 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@lists.linuxfoundation.org Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin Core and hard forks 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: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 18:12:35 -0000 On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 1:42 AM, Cory Fields via bitcoin-dev wrote: > I'm not sure why Bitcoin Core and the rules and policies that it > enforces are being conflated in this thread. There's nothing stopping > us from adding the ability for the user to decide what their consensus > parameters should be at runtime. In fact, that's already in use: > ./bitcoind -testnet. As mentioned in another thread, the chain params > could even come from a config file that the user could edit without > touching the code. For what is worth, here's yet another piece of code from the "doing nothing" side: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/6382 It allows you to create a regtest-like testchain with a maximum block size chosen at run time. Rusty used a less generic testchain for testing 8 MB blocks: http://rusty.ozlabs.org/?p=509 Unfortunately I don't know of anybody that has used my patch to test any other size (maybe there's not that much interest in testing other sizes after all?). I'm totally in favor of preemptively adapting the code so that when a new blocksize is to be deployed, adapting the code is not a problem. Developers can agree on many changes in the code without users having to agree on a concrete block size first. I offer my help to do that. That's what I'm trying to do in #6382 and http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-June/008961.html but to my surprise that gets disregarded as "doing nothing" and as "having a negative attitude", when not simply ignored.