From: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@gmail.com>
To: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP 102 - kick the can down the road to 2MB
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 10:43:19 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CADm_WcZDLfAwCJn8qc1Myp-OQhgPzx+A7b6nw8u9Z7mgQ6hveg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150721135846.GB13429@savin.petertodd.org>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1914 bytes --]
On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 6:58 AM, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> I don't agree with you at all.
>
> This is a case where if Jeff doesn't understand that issue, he's
> proposing changes that he's not competent enough to understand, and it'd
> save us a lot of review effort if he left that discussion. Equally, Jeff
> is in a position in the dev community where he should be that competent;
> if he actually isn't it does a lot of good for the broader community to
> change that opinion.
>
> I personally *don't* think he's doing that, rather I believe he knows
> full well it's a bad patch and is proposing it because he wants to push
> discussion towards a solution. Often trolling the a audience with bad
> patches is an effective way to motivate people to respond by writing
> better ones; Jeff has told me he often does exactly that.
>
>
mmmm kay. Let's try to keep it technical, please.
2MB is a limit that has been discussed as a viable next-step, meeting with
the most consensus.
2MB gets beyond the 1MB hard fork issue, while still remaining within a
safety cap that should ensure the system does not go "off the rails" as
some has predicted.
Security, privacy and centralization are not going to disappear at 2MB.
Further, a limited step gains valuable field data for judging whether
further steps are warranted - thus informing the "better block size
solution" development process.
Finally, as stated in the initial PR, it is intended as a viable fallback
should we reach a point of criticality where the user community feels a
block size increase is warranted, yet cannot reach consensus on a fancy,
all-consuming solution be it 20MB, flexcap, BIP 100, BIP 102, etc.
I am open to suggestions for improving BIP 102. The goal is a minimum
complexity fallback that others have previously agreed was a useful
kick-the-can compromise - a static 2MB cap.
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2526 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-07-22 17:45 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 29+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-07-17 15:55 [bitcoin-dev] BIP 102 - kick the can down the road to 2MB Jeff Garzik
2015-07-17 16:11 ` Andrew
2015-07-17 16:12 ` Tier Nolan
2015-07-17 16:14 ` Tier Nolan
2015-07-17 17:57 ` Ross Nicoll
2015-07-17 19:06 ` Chris Wardell
2015-07-17 19:13 ` Ross Nicoll
2015-07-19 22:51 ` Ross Nicoll
2015-07-21 9:26 ` Jorge Timón
2015-07-21 13:04 ` Peter Todd
2015-07-21 13:58 ` Peter Todd
2015-07-22 15:51 ` Tom Harding
2015-07-22 17:02 ` Sriram Karra
2015-07-22 17:40 ` Sriram Karra
2015-07-22 17:43 ` Jeff Garzik [this message]
2015-07-22 22:30 ` Peter Todd
2015-07-23 5:39 ` jl2012
2015-07-22 17:00 ` jl2012
2015-07-21 22:05 ` Ross Nicoll
2015-07-23 11:24 ` Jorge Timón
2015-07-17 20:29 ` Luke Dashjr
2015-07-17 21:13 ` Angel Leon
2015-07-17 22:25 ` Tier Nolan
2015-07-18 9:22 ` Jorge Timón
2015-07-18 9:24 ` Jorge Timón
2015-07-24 8:52 ` Thomas Zander
2015-07-24 9:43 ` Slurms MacKenzie
2015-07-18 4:32 ` Venzen Khaosan
2015-07-17 22:40 Raystonn
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=CADm_WcZDLfAwCJn8qc1Myp-OQhgPzx+A7b6nw8u9Z7mgQ6hveg@mail.gmail.com \
--to=jgarzik@gmail.com \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=pete@petertodd.org \
/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