public inbox for bitcoindev@googlegroups.com
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Jorge Timón" <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
To: Daniele Pinna <daniele.pinna@gmail.com>
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] On the Nature of Miner Advantages in Uncapped Block Size Fee Markets
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2015 19:30:33 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CABm2gDr6TQwDGnYfnCWC7HUWuFXuxdwrG0Q_qJy3pgR-vLAwCw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAEgR2PHggX-8r+FZm=pod9KQv3E3=8wo-9nOB02-YDmy5NGsZQ@mail.gmail.com>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1300 bytes --]

On Aug 29, 2015 9:43 AM, "Daniele Pinna via bitcoin-dev" <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> This work has vacuumed my entire life for the past two weeks leading me
to lag behind on a lot of work. I apologize for typos which I may not have
seen. I stand by for any comments the community may have and look forward
to reigniting consideration of a block size scaling proposal (BIP101)
which, due to the XT fork drama, I believe has been placed hastily and
undeservedly on the chopping block.

I don't like relying on exponential growth (that's why I don't like neither
Gavin's 101 nor Pieter's 103).

But I don't think it's too late to turn bip101 into just another proposal
for an uncontroversial hardfork (changing the 75% to 95% would be the first
step) and xt into just another software fork.

My favorite one so far is bip102 (even though I still consider "2mb now"
arbitrary and I'm worried about making mining centralization even worse
than it is now), but if it was framed as a schism hardfork like bip101 I
would also warn about the dangers of a schism hardfork for it.

>
https://www.scribd.com/doc/276849939/On-the-Nature-of-Miner-Advantages-in-Uncapped-Block-Size-Fee-Markets

I'll read it to try to understand your claims. Are you presentung this in
the scaling workshop?

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1669 bytes --]

  reply	other threads:[~2015-08-29 17:30 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2015-08-29 16:43 [bitcoin-dev] On the Nature of Miner Advantages in Uncapped Block Size Fee Markets Daniele Pinna
2015-08-29 17:30 ` Jorge Timón [this message]
2015-08-29 21:07 ` Matt Corallo
2015-08-29 23:17   ` Peter R
2015-08-30  2:33     ` Matt Corallo
2015-08-30  2:35       ` Matt Corallo
2015-08-30  3:08         ` Peter R
2015-08-30  2:49       ` Peter R
2015-08-30  3:56         ` Matt Corallo

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=CABm2gDr6TQwDGnYfnCWC7HUWuFXuxdwrG0Q_qJy3pgR-vLAwCw@mail.gmail.com \
    --to=jtimon@jtimon.cc \
    --cc=bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org \
    --cc=daniele.pinna@gmail.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox