From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1YyJZZ-0000gv-Nk for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 29 May 2015 12:39:37 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.217.181 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.217.181; envelope-from=gavinandresen@gmail.com; helo=mail-lb0-f181.google.com; Received: from mail-lb0-f181.google.com ([209.85.217.181]) by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1YyJZY-0007zE-Ln for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 29 May 2015 12:39:37 +0000 Received: by lbbqq2 with SMTP id qq2so47535681lbb.3 for ; Fri, 29 May 2015 05:39:30 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.152.6.196 with SMTP id d4mr7802254laa.40.1432903170271; Fri, 29 May 2015 05:39:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.25.90.75 with HTTP; Fri, 29 May 2015 05:39:30 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <16096345.A1MpJQQkRW@crushinator> Date: Fri, 29 May 2015 08:39:30 -0400 Message-ID: From: Gavin Andresen To: Mike Hearn Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0141a718763318051737c480 X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for sender-domain 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (gavinandresen[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature X-Headers-End: 1YyJZY-0007zE-Ln Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proposed alternatives to the 20MB step function X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 29 May 2015 12:39:37 -0000 --089e0141a718763318051737c480 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 What do other people think? If we can't come to an agreement soon, then I'll ask for help reviewing/submitting patches to Mike's Bitcoin-Xt project that implement a big increase now that grows over time so we may never have to go through all this rancor and debate again. I'll then ask for help lobbying the merchant services and exchanges and hosted wallet companies and other bitcoind-using-infrastructure companies (and anybody who agrees with me that we need bigger blocks sooner rather than later) to run Bitcoin-Xt instead of Bitcoin Core, and state that they are running it. We'll be able to see uptake on the network by monitoring client versions. Perhaps by the time that happens there will be consensus bigger blocks are needed sooner rather than later; if so, great! The early deployment will just serve as early testing, and all of the software already deployed will ready for bigger blocks. But if there is still no consensus among developers but the "bigger blocks now" movement is successful, I'll ask for help getting big miners to do the same, and use the soft-fork block version voting mechanism to (hopefully) get a majority and then a super-majority willing to produce bigger blocks. The purpose of that process is to prove to any doubters that they'd better start supporting bigger blocks or they'll be left behind, and to give them a chance to upgrade before that happens. Because if we can't come to consensus here, the ultimate authority for determining consensus is what code the majority of merchants and exchanges and miners are running. -- -- Gavin Andresen --089e0141a718763318051737c480 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
What do other people think?


<= div>If we can't come to an agreement soon, then I'll ask for help r= eviewing/submitting patches to Mike's Bitcoin-Xt project that implement= a big increase now that grows over time so we may never have to go through= all this rancor and debate again.

I'll then a= sk for help lobbying the merchant services and exchanges and hosted wallet = companies and other bitcoind-using-infrastructure companies (and anybody wh= o agrees with me that we need bigger blocks sooner rather than later) to ru= n Bitcoin-Xt instead of Bitcoin Core, and state that they are running it. W= e'll be able to see uptake on the network by monitoring client versions= .

Perhaps by the time that happens there will be c= onsensus bigger blocks are needed sooner rather than later; if so, great! T= he early deployment will just serve as early testing, and all of the softwa= re already deployed will ready for bigger blocks.

= But if there is still no consensus among developers but the "bigger bl= ocks now" movement is successful, I'll ask for help getting big mi= ners to do the same, and use the soft-fork block version voting mechanism t= o (hopefully) get a majority and then a super-majority willing to produce b= igger blocks. The purpose of that process is to prove to any doubters that = they'd better start supporting bigger blocks or they'll be left beh= ind, and to give them a chance to upgrade before that happens.

Because if we can't come to consensus here,= the ultimate authority for determining consensus is what code the majority= of merchants and exchanges and miners are running.


--
--
Gavin Andresen
--089e0141a718763318051737c480--