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 6582C9FA for ; Mon, 6 Feb 2017 20:25:15 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-ua0-f169.google.com (mail-ua0-f169.google.com [209.85.217.169]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DA295224 for ; Mon, 6 Feb 2017 20:25:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ua0-f169.google.com with SMTP id y9so69735347uae.2 for ; Mon, 06 Feb 2017 12:25:14 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=CWNK+nrwvFZNpBLlrngWmc/Ri4+MhHsFOKPkXA/jQ5M=; b=qaVtej7c5ZY1BeU5oWQi1wS5NEkS55zsAOuzfHAySsDUpG6cBjismE2pSXJSM6grrs 2Uao9aSPJ6lsHkrGzItKlPKDJ+nwXN4UPsqnE2PHUknAiLvrRm4K/l3IOwxDhdWRvIeQ nZTkk4tcPZS2Hivfc3tIeCn2YZcBuEUe/qKN4Kz1CnYBALUZguTMGdEsWErH4isxkCqK NgrUDEuSUAgPYLkNfpnhmligj/cdQyTFsBk15Bed8o18IzvAZEHF2mxzdFX8iI7e4zZY wLb8z7t1fOxwXn4qgQLaZbmyaIhD7/bj1k746TxtrJgiOv1SZdGgBUYAG12i1oik7B6P ag+Q== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=CWNK+nrwvFZNpBLlrngWmc/Ri4+MhHsFOKPkXA/jQ5M=; b=Zek5Wds2mPdUtpnfFUzkQZdEBAthBdC/kCN1sTEKm/cZZ8e5wQ55Al0zYYDsMRT4Gc 7XRkrDvoraP+oVHR8zA6GksmXPlizYvu10giw26X7BxIFbRmDimzLl5NKAJWOFOenGxQ HdzUCBLRtFGOJx+vaa2Q7CWkleRWbcxbRMoo4GF754D2MM9iwlDqqrUW6alPYTu6yzaV eIUKFz1IQW088lPUeWdKQqJ331mUZw2JF6vWOlmkCubDZCZBSxH8VaaDyxvSYJz1tX/r kVBM5OPmvq7uKLPKhRQz41XLKRqyqYCb8THZYTWb7LOD1YsIM6dWFBR64c3ChYjTKb/y /a9Q== X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39lhG+1iSaZcnGWcbhLuMzeOeusrRXOROimYzQIUx/8dbx/BxxECYICRAoLLAtTrPGmx0LxI+0i87Nro8A== X-Received: by 10.176.18.238 with SMTP id o46mr5905715uac.71.1486412714046; Mon, 06 Feb 2017 12:25:14 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.103.49.77 with HTTP; Mon, 6 Feb 2017 12:25:13 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <201702061953.40774.luke@dashjr.org> References: <201702052302.29599.luke@dashjr.org> <201702061953.40774.luke@dashjr.org> From: "t. khan" Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2017 15:25:13 -0500 Message-ID: To: Luke Dashjr , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f40304361462cfa7780547e26def X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT,FREEMAIL_FROM, HTML_MESSAGE, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM autolearn=no version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 08 Feb 2017 01:44:07 +0000 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] A Modified Version of Luke-jr's Block Size BIP X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2017 20:25:15 -0000 --f40304361462cfa7780547e26def Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 2:53 PM, Luke Dashjr wrote: > On Monday, February 06, 2017 6:19:43 PM you wrote: > > >My BIP draft didn't make progress because the community opposes any > block > > >size increase hardfork ever. > > > > Luke, how do you know the community opposes that? Specifically, how did > you > > come to this conclusion? > > http://www.strawpoll.me/12228388/r That poll shows 63% of votes want a larger than 1 MB block by this summer. How do you go from that to "the community opposes any block increase ever"? It shows the exact opposite of that. > > >Your version doesn't address the current block size > > >issues (ie, the blocks being too large). > > > > Why do you think blocks are "too large"? Please cite some evidence. I've > > asked this before and you ignored it, but an answer would be helpful to > the > > discussion. > > Full node count is far below the safe minimum of 85% of economic activity. > Is this causing a problem now? If so, what? > Typically reasons given for people not using full nodes themselves come > down > to the high resource requirements caused by the block size. The reason people stop running nodes is because there's no incentive to counteract the resource costs. Attempting to solve this by making blocks *smaller* is like curing a disease by killing the patient. (Incentivizing full node operation would fix that problem.) - t.k. --f40304361462cfa7780547e26def Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 2:53 PM, Luke Dashjr <luke@dash= jr.org> wrote:
On Monday, Fe= bruary 06, 2017 6:19:43 PM you wrote:
> >My BIP draft didn't make progress because the community oppose= s any block
> >size increase hardfork ever.
>
> Luke, how do you know the community oppo= ses that? Specifically, how did you
> come to this conclusion?

http://www.strawpoll.me/12228388/r

That poll shows 63% of votes want a larger than 1 MB block by t= his summer. How do you go from that to "the community opposes any bloc= k increase ever"? It shows the exact opposite of that.
=C2=A0
> >Your version doesn't address the current block size
> >issues (ie, the blocks being too large).
>
> Why do you think blocks are "too large"? Please cite some ev= idence. I've
> asked this before and you ignored it, but an answer would be helpful t= o the
> discussion.

Full node count is far below the safe minimum of 85% of economic act= ivity.

Is this causing a problem now? I= f so, what?
=C2=A0
Typically reasons given for people not using full nodes themselves come dow= n
to the high resource requirements caused by the block size.

The reason people stop running nodes is because there'= s no incentive to counteract the resource costs. Attempting to solve this b= y making blocks *smaller* is like curing a disease by killing the patient. = (Incentivizing full node operation would fix that problem.)
<= br>
- t.k.

--f40304361462cfa7780547e26def--