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 E6A59B76 for ; Wed, 8 Feb 2017 19:53:17 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-ua0-f178.google.com (mail-ua0-f178.google.com [209.85.217.178]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0B87A175 for ; Wed, 8 Feb 2017 19:53:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ua0-f178.google.com with SMTP id 96so117871339uaq.3 for ; Wed, 08 Feb 2017 11:53:16 -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 :cc; bh=AFpdrIHgvz8YGAdIgSzYqXNcbnPIYdN6eT1j9VeXQW0=; b=DCsEUm6BxYpl1uRdIzFb/4aBBPcfRQkmwaaqZmkNC0omKW2SI3md0ni6vIT1lVecYN ipCzFvxXTXGb1/OrS09KEont4fqgUnYoAwWTSZkerpD8MlL8QzlP7AEJC+0axCdysVW5 Ht3ZYXvBZz6LXwT3+5RdNSukQVpaFg8sV8+AZ7Oh9dbT1f8d5Tj0MUfYAKq90qvqRmXV Wf6pMJAb5MoqAJPktp1uTvQi3X3dqAZpazj6ptnaETseD7VZrWFClExLgWcsZTeP7BzT BQljHcf1PpYQrWqEJzdQ/TH+0t8d4P95etNBAPlLvLTBow3pX//F1PbRvKZ1LfGz82tA v6Ag== 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:cc; bh=AFpdrIHgvz8YGAdIgSzYqXNcbnPIYdN6eT1j9VeXQW0=; b=qRgHG4YbrzHnMX9t0Qe0x4EDTlmnwOYY3nWONjLU/hz6Q+SNElCdiHtG1vMrpt0ISN xNpJCeu3/N5od/gION1VAm7SI62sRtw+ERRljTrxAG+euyaSgTiJLnhktrlUx3B/uBgy lsx6HsvHyhLaciPAQHg073A/+Lh7Ck15JW/D7F+qwUxdG2E0RaX948xQWiPtU9JglbeS Y3lyCO2MkF6E2BpVeooKOP4QH7lOHZE4bX3e3wpk+9YJ6O0JOBdGWxPjnpC7F0g9pRJ4 qV1wGbgPejpfwbhH5VENT5i3TfEZFhLhHlL7UGgTrEYK7bZL/nzAWPUCBPITIfvciKdr vzgQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXKpOSI+muGEddnK+tYJldS7a5rPBQN6ehXgoVLy9vvRPsK9gwybmE4YkW7J24gELRrT0xjnPshVs86qww== X-Received: by 10.159.36.73 with SMTP id 67mr12177004uaq.124.1486583596220; Wed, 08 Feb 2017 11:53:16 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.103.49.77 with HTTP; Wed, 8 Feb 2017 11:53:15 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <201702052302.29599.luke@dashjr.org> <201702061953.40774.luke@dashjr.org> From: "t. khan" Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2017 14:53:15 -0500 Message-ID: To: alp alp Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113e1c9c2e880705480a372e 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: Fri, 10 Feb 2017 10:23:41 +0000 Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion 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: Wed, 08 Feb 2017 19:53:18 -0000 --001a113e1c9c2e880705480a372e Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Even ignoring the obvious flaws of that poll, Andrew is still correct: you cannot reach 100% consensus. It's statistically impossible in any large group. Only the majority needs to consent, though what is considered a majority varies depending on the context (95%, 75%, 51%). Nowhere does it say "everyone needs to agree". On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 1:16 PM, alp alp wrote: > Doing nothing is the rules we all agreed to. If those rules are to be > changed,nearly everyone will need to consent. The same rule applies to the > cap, we all agreed to 21m, and if someone wants to change that, nearly > everyone would need to agree. > > > On Feb 8, 2017 10:28 AM, "Andrew Johnson" > wrote: > > It is when you're talking about making a choice and 6.3x more people > prefer something else. Doing nothing is a choice as well. > > Put another way, if 10% supported increasing the 21M coin cap and 63% were > against, would you seriously consider doing it? > > On Feb 8, 2017 9:57 AM, "alp alp" wrote: > >> 10% is not a tiny minority. >> >> On Feb 8, 2017 9:51 AM, "Andrew Johnson" >> wrote: >> >>> You're never going to reach 100% agreement, and stifling the network >>> literally forever to please a tiny minority is daft. >>> >>> On Feb 8, 2017 8:52 AM, "alp alp via bitcoin-dev" < >>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: >>> >>> 10% say literally never. That seems like a significant >>> disenfranchisement and lack of consensus. >>> >>> On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 2:25 PM, t. khan via bitcoin-dev < >>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: >>> >>>> 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. >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> bitcoin-dev mailing list >>>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org >>>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev >>>> >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> bitcoin-dev mailing list >>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org >>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev >>> >>> >>> > --001a113e1c9c2e880705480a372e Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Even ignoring the obvious flaws of that poll, Andrew is st= ill correct: you cannot reach 100% consensus. It's statistically imposs= ible in any large group.

Only the majority needs to cons= ent, though what is considered a majority varies depending on the context (= 95%, 75%, 51%). Nowhere does it say "everyone needs to agree".

On Wed, = Feb 8, 2017 at 1:16 PM, alp alp <alp.bitcoin@gmail.com> = wrote:
Doing nothi= ng is the rules we all agreed to.=C2=A0 If those rules are to be changed,ne= arly everyone will need to consent.=C2=A0 The same rule applies to the cap,= we all agreed to 21m, and if someone wants to change that, nearly everyone= would need to agree.

=
On Feb 8, 2017 10:28 AM, "Andrew Johnso= n" <andrew.johnson83@gmail.com> wrote:
It is when you'= ;re talking about making a choice and 6.3x more people prefer something els= e. Doing nothing is a choice as well.

Put another way, if 10% supported increasing the 21M coin cap and= 63% were against, would you seriously consider doing it?

<= div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Feb 8, 2017 9:57 AM, "alp alp" <<= a href=3D"mailto:alp.bitcoin@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">alp.bitcoin@gmail= .com> wrote:
=
10% is not a tiny minority.

On Feb 8, 2017 9:51 AM, "Andrew John= son" <andrew.johnson83@gmail.com> wrote:
You're never going to r= each 100% agreement, and stifling the network literally forever to please a= tiny minority is daft.

On Feb 8, 2017 8:52 AM, "alp alp via bitcoin-dev" <<= a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">b= itcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
10% say litera= lly never.=C2=A0 That seems like a significant disenfranchisement and lack = of consensus.

On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 2:25 PM, t= . khan via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfounda<= wbr>tion.org> wrote:
=
On Mon, Feb 6= , 2017 at 2:53 PM, Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org> wrote:
On Monday, February 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 opposes th= at? 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 blo= ck by this summer. How do you go from that to "the community opposes a= ny block 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 econo= mic activity.

Is this causing a problem= now? If 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.


_________________________= ______________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
= bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org= /mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev



_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
= bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org= /mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev




--001a113e1c9c2e880705480a372e--