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-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1YshiD-0006pj-BI for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 14 May 2015 01:13:21 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.192.42 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.192.42; envelope-from=voisine@gmail.com; helo=mail-qg0-f42.google.com; Received: from mail-qg0-f42.google.com ([209.85.192.42]) by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1YshiC-0005d7-8o for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 14 May 2015 01:13:21 +0000 Received: by qgg76 with SMTP id 76so4515265qgg.3 for ; Wed, 13 May 2015 18:13:14 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.140.144.67 with SMTP id 64mr2343180qhq.40.1431565994909; Wed, 13 May 2015 18:13:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.140.91.37 with HTTP; Wed, 13 May 2015 18:13:14 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <5550D8BE.6070207@electrum.org> Date: Wed, 13 May 2015 18:13:14 -0700 Message-ID: From: Aaron Voisine To: Pieter Wuille Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1135380c9967d60516006ed5 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 (voisine[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: 1YshiC-0005d7-8o Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Long-term mining incentives 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: Thu, 14 May 2015 01:13:21 -0000 --001a1135380c9967d60516006ed5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Conservative is a relative term. Dropping transactions in a way that is unpredictable to the sender sounds incredibly drastic to me. I'm suggesting increasing the blocksize, drastic as it is, is the more conservative choice. I would recommend that the fork take effect when some specific large supermajority of the pervious 1000 blocks indicate they have upgraded, as a safer alternative to a simple flag date, but I'm sure I wouldn't have to point out that option to people here. Aaron Voisine co-founder and CEO breadwallet.com On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 5:58 PM, Pieter Wuille wrote: > On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 5:48 PM, Aaron Voisine wrote: > >> We have $3billion plus of value in this system to defend. The safe, >> conservative course is to increase the block size. Miners already have an >> incentive to find ways to encourage higher fees and we can help them with >> standard recommended propagation rules and hybrid priority/fee transaction >> selection for blocks that increases confirmation delays for low fee >> transactions. >> > > You may find that the most economical solution, but I can't understand how > you can call it conservative. > > Suggesting a hard fork is betting the survival of the entire ecosystem on > the bet that everyone will agree with and upgrade to new suggested software > before a flag date. > > -- > Pieter > > --001a1135380c9967d60516006ed5 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Conservative is a relative term. Dropping transactions in = a way that is unpredictable to the sender sounds incredibly drastic to me. = I'm suggesting increasing the blocksize, drastic as it is, is the more = conservative choice. I would recommend that the fork take effect when some = specific large supermajority of the pervious 1000 blocks indicate they have= upgraded, as a safer alternative to a simple flag date, but I'm sure I= wouldn't have to point out that option to people here.


Aaron Voisine
co-foun= der and CEO
breadwa= llet.com

On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 5:58 PM, Pieter Wuil= le <pieter.wuille@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, May 13, 2015 at = 5:48 PM, Aaron Voisine <voisine@gmail.com> wrote:
=
We have $3billion plus of value in this system to defen= d. The safe, conservative course is to increase the block size. Miners alre= ady have an incentive to find ways to encourage higher fees =C2=A0and we ca= n help them with standard recommended propagation rules and hybrid priority= /fee transaction selection for blocks that increases confirmation delays fo= r low fee transactions.

<= /span>
You may find that the most economical solution, but I can't = understand how you can call it conservative.

Suggesting a= hard fork is betting the survival of the entire ecosystem on the bet that = everyone will agree with and upgrade to new suggested software before a fla= g date.

--
Pieter

--001a1135380c9967d60516006ed5--