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 1F09BD86 for ; Sat, 29 Aug 2015 17:30:36 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-lb0-f169.google.com (mail-lb0-f169.google.com [209.85.217.169]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 787A7106 for ; Sat, 29 Aug 2015 17:30:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: by lbbtg9 with SMTP id tg9so44128201lbb.1 for ; Sat, 29 Aug 2015 10:30:34 -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=icq1DMu9rsQ0roME7DnGAB5U2+FqXUTvU/3ZjcgRXek=; b=aWgBX2CxS410ha55EDwCgOuKylutsqJK/hsodW6EJpZhqw+fUwKFSAvAcZbJ271ieS 6yZwcXivl6QL4Z/sfbTCBr8npyPMQrHYiW3Pdo/AZI+LsOcagrtEk7cFR+wDXBh7Ym6q siPoy+n6xQm/md3j2JS3/wSXobGJZZpB1GR40X4L9NU0ps5UOXTayZj3pUDAeL5EtwrC kbupPJ/aAAJzxqHlMKlHV7xi0jwh2dKrsHzw1/6RKGY3gmcS5BAJALoApQ8SjwDJISg1 Xmz8RNwUaENe9+s92MOz33JLboWaLl8VlfP5mzkhhSucS4Nclglz3Tn3KnGwacua0hc5 eYbQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmMOL3+gPWnCuCHbeKV8YsKBLYSqjI9fGgmjrzSYtFiuaVEN1aInRznOl6fr3cgsJiSNKQd MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.152.7.68 with SMTP id h4mr7236034laa.94.1440869433792; Sat, 29 Aug 2015 10:30:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.25.15.22 with HTTP; Sat, 29 Aug 2015 10:30:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.25.15.22 with HTTP; Sat, 29 Aug 2015 10:30:33 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2015 19:30:33 +0200 Message-ID: From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= To: Daniele Pinna Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c28894c4f32d051e768e30 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] On the Nature of Miner Advantages in Uncapped Block Size Fee Markets 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, 29 Aug 2015 17:30:36 -0000 --001a11c28894c4f32d051e768e30 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 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? --001a11c28894c4f32d051e768e30 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


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

I don't like relying on exponential growth (that's w= hy 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 consid= er "2mb now" arbitrary and I'm worried about making mining ce= ntralization even worse than it is now), but if it was framed as a schism h= ardfork like bip101 I would also warn about the dangers of a schism hardfor= k for it.

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

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

--001a11c28894c4f32d051e768e30--