From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1Z5igP-0003b8-16 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 18 Jun 2015 22:53:17 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of bitpay.com designates 209.85.214.169 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.214.169; envelope-from=jgarzik@bitpay.com; helo=mail-ob0-f169.google.com; Received: from mail-ob0-f169.google.com ([209.85.214.169]) by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1Z5igO-0004s7-3y for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 18 Jun 2015 22:53:17 +0000 Received: by obbkn5 with SMTP id kn5so35337501obb.0 for ; Thu, 18 Jun 2015 15:53:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=pPim39vmQ67k7v1ps+i+AfLFiv8sMEUnNKp979ASEp0=; b=CwTbjBr9orlfIJMCvPx5vE7bpt3cmHFkgHqqBbnLHZxp7RTG8Uj+XklZA9rTiEvwWV ZazZ0l9A0aKsy8Yow3m4e0i8l4fBowRxT2DgWXk4fHwBDWS3ucd/f1hCOB1RrnF6h1oG 8OlHR3Kl/ArKl3h9Umz0mhYiihbNZgpXQeoxb6RJwfvJATnY/q3ngSLHNlP+00gm7/NV SlCZiA2Mae/Jv2K27xseFr+eyIwaw0GCvak1pyt4bIAT5xLWU9jaiBK/XIeW3FQdV/YC RlFtUVH+7sezRAC9P8i1h1JORgLZdmOLNeLMTsbQUbRmYG5HCA3DzaWt4PFdS+N9bjEm Q6zQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQknvUPG0LeIo0mjtiQ+YRWtJ6dfo2lU8yfO0D5Bb5Jm5UrWWw9esw/PFuZHGmOOBi4J7kyd X-Received: by 10.60.92.131 with SMTP id cm3mr10834882oeb.23.1434667990686; Thu, 18 Jun 2015 15:53:10 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.202.108.149 with HTTP; Thu, 18 Jun 2015 15:52:48 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <55828737.6000007@riseup.net> <55831CAB.2080303@jrn.me.uk> <1867667.WXWC1C9quc@crushinator> From: Jeff Garzik Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2015 15:52:48 -0700 Message-ID: To: Mark Friedenbach Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b33d812f4b5850518d2ab53 X-Spam-Score: -0.3 (/) 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 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 0.3 AWL AWL: Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address X-Headers-End: 1Z5igO-0004s7-3y Cc: Bitcoin Development , Gavin Andresen Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Concerns Regarding Threats by a Developer to Remove Commit Access from Other Developers 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, 18 Jun 2015 22:53:17 -0000 --047d7b33d812f4b5850518d2ab53 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 3:33 PM, Mark Friedenbach wrote: > On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 2:58 PM, Jeff Garzik wrote: > >> >> The whole point is getting out in front of the need, to prevent >> significant negative impact to users when blocks are consistently full. >> >> To do that, you need to (a) plan forward, in order to (b) set a hard fork >> date in the future. >> > > Or alternatively, fix the reasons why users would have negative > experiences with full blocks, chiefly: > > * Get safe forms of replace-by-fee and child-pays-for-parent finished > and in 0.12. > * Develop cross-platform libraries for managing micropayment channels, > and get wallet authors to adopt > * Use fidelity bonds, solvency proofs, and other tricks to minimize the > risk of already deployed off-chain solutions as an interim measure until: > * Deploy soft-fork changes for truly scalable solutions like Lightning > Network. > > Not raising the block size limit does not mean doing nothing to solve the > problem. > This is a long, unreasonable list of work. None of this exists and it equates to "upgrade all wallets and websites everywhere" It requires all exchanges, payment processors, merchants, etc. to - basically everybody but miners - to update. It is a far, far larger amount of work to write, test and deploy than simply increasing the block size limit. Think through roll-out of these ambitious suggestions, before suggesting as an alternative! Not a realistic alternative except in an alternate universe where (a) developer work at all companies is cost free, plus (b) we can pause the business universe while we wait for The Perfect Solution. -- Jeff Garzik Bitcoin core developer and open source evangelist BitPay, Inc. https://bitpay.com/ --047d7b33d812f4b5850518d2ab53 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 3:33 PM, Mark Friedenbach <mar= k@friedenbach.org> wrote:
On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 2:58 PM, Jeff Garzik = <jgarzik@bitpay.= com> wrote:

The whole point is getting out in front of the need, to preven= t significant negative impact to users when blocks are consistently full.
To do that, you need to (a) plan forward, in order to (b)= set a hard fork date in the future.

Or alternatively, fix the reasons why users would have negativ= e experiences with full blocks, chiefly:

=C2=A0 * Get saf= e forms of replace-by-fee and child-pays-for-parent finished and in 0.12.
=C2=A0 * Develop cross-platform libraries for managing micropa= yment channels, and get wallet authors to adopt
=C2=A0 * Use= fidelity bonds, solvency proofs, and other tricks to minimize the risk of = already deployed off-chain solutions as an interim measure until:
=
=C2=A0 * Deploy soft-fork changes for truly scalable solutions like Li= ghtning Network.

Not raising the block size limit does no= t mean doing nothing to solve the problem.

This is a long, unreasonable list of work.=C2=A0 No= ne of this exists and it equates to "upgrade all wallets and websites = everywhere" =C2=A0It requires all exchanges, payment processors, merch= ants, etc. to =C2=A0- basically everybody but miners - to update.

It is a far, far larger amount of work to write, test and d= eploy than simply increasing the block size limit.

Think through roll-out of these ambitious suggestions, before suggesting a= s an alternative!

Not a realistic alternative exce= pt in an alternate universe where (a) developer work at all companies is co= st free, plus (b) we can pause the business universe while we wait for The = Perfect Solution.





=C2=A0



--
Jeff GarzikBitcoin core developer and open source evangelist
BitPay, Inc. =C2=A0 = =C2=A0 =C2=A0https://bitp= ay.com/
--047d7b33d812f4b5850518d2ab53--