From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191]
	helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
	by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <jgarzik@bitpay.com>) id 1YqRF0-0001vT-Mm
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Thu, 07 May 2015 19:13:50 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of bitpay.com
	designates 209.85.214.171 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=209.85.214.171; envelope-from=jgarzik@bitpay.com;
	helo=mail-ob0-f171.google.com; 
Received: from mail-ob0-f171.google.com ([209.85.214.171])
	by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76) id 1YqREz-0004pT-Pe
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Thu, 07 May 2015 19:13:50 +0000
Received: by obblk2 with SMTP id lk2so39253348obb.0
	for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
	Thu, 07 May 2015 12:13:44 -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=HHuVFNk/PgwJySVbLEGcWd1/+H4vDpzFwUZolu0vfH4=;
	b=RqmGWNQ6l9MSKLWGp705r5QfZgpnQdOqgUZOFeBxPFMbsKGGiSozKRxj1sACTqx0m7
	Dk15x29NaDbJtSWpJ00s+fkn43dYpG94wN9h5iWuyyqll1ZMx1XU40zVIPK7BDz9wzDH
	zlBUL1+4NERaO8kBcTKqhE7SycCPtXIquO3UgDtNiYOR/6Cb4fCVXeRc1UVF0gNCDDW/
	ev5ALyZA07DRBEjSdWZni2gHUE2NcBDItGnchN0sYfdHv+emL6oxXNgSkqjqrytd02Oa
	jL0yuW+1kT0evpvdW4kxopPA0SBhvAYWbyVpuErr4CdI0Rd19nQjv1cGvbFL/oKD25Dc
	6Tyg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmn46pIp0Qil3kF9CQxpPfsjGurOl5TFraTW2q+xeHfpXUkBEytZCBOXqmya+nfNJ/AJfhq
X-Received: by 10.202.224.11 with SMTP id x11mr85595oig.33.1431026024194; Thu,
	07 May 2015 12:13:44 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.202.108.149 with HTTP; Thu, 7 May 2015 12:13:23 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <554BB718.6070104@bluematt.me>
References: <554A91BE.6060105@bluematt.me>
	<CANEZrP3wGWHdz+ut6pvke5TJJsc1rTFt8sn2KziX35oL5LAsyg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABm2gDpDvk2VsQ+mJ-BoeBKmvu9jBXNujZEFKuCStRNjFL6VOA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CANEZrP2zAGCCBhNa4=9yw+A_Dn5o4SQXoPTE_qcJzZ1dFuF2tw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABm2gDqd6iHRUDKZWWTudcC1QkYa+rCuHjz7pMC2K1Db8wpgfA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CANEZrP1CU0kB0vXeXUX1L8byaT-Zf2xg+3N+GeNthi_i6bn1qw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABsx9T2Nxvr4fqREMw3_LXftzsxrUAR1+9sVMa8_EpTnH1nN1Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<554BA032.4040405@bluematt.me>
	<CANEZrP3yM9wsSPNgpOsXDk-DjUy5PW2XuRTvK2AyCNbVJ5hZHw@mail.gmail.com>
	<554BB718.6070104@bluematt.me>
From: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@bitpay.com>
Date: Thu, 7 May 2015 15:13:23 -0400
Message-ID: <CAJHLa0Pjet092XiEOBHgGyvRgdwmLnd1hVajS+SDgXa1BAojVw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Matt Corallo <bitcoin-list@bluematt.me>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113d42e0d638b3051582b561
X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/)
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
	-0.1 AWL AWL: Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address
X-Headers-End: 1YqREz-0004pT-Pe
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Block Size Increase
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
	<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
	<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 May 2015 19:13:50 -0000

--001a113d42e0d638b3051582b561
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 3:03 PM, Matt Corallo <bitcoin-list@bluematt.me>
wrote:
> More generally, consider the situation we're in now. Gavin is going off
> pitching this idea to the general public (which, I agree, is an
> important step in pulling off a hardfork) while people who actually
> study the issues are left wondering why they're being ignored (ie why is
> there no consensus-building happening on this list?).

This sub-thread threatens to veer off into he-said-she-said.

> If, instead, there had been an intro on the list as "I think we should
> do the blocksize increase soon, what do people think?", the response
> could likely have focused much more around creating a specific list of
> things we should do before we (the technical community) think we are
> prepared for a blocksize increase.

Agreed, but that is water under the bridge at this point.  You - rightly -
opened the topic here and now we're discussing it.

Mike and Gavin are due the benefit of doubt because making a change to a
leaderless automaton powered by leaderless open source software is breaking
new ground.  I don't focus so much on how we got to this point, but rather,
where we go from here.

-- 
Jeff Garzik
Bitcoin core developer and open source evangelist
BitPay, Inc.      https://bitpay.com/

--001a113d42e0d638b3051582b561
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div>On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 3:03 PM, Matt Corallo &lt;<a h=
ref=3D"mailto:bitcoin-list@bluematt.me">bitcoin-list@bluematt.me</a>&gt; wr=
ote:<br>&gt; More generally, consider the situation we&#39;re in now. Gavin=
 is going off<br>&gt; pitching this idea to the general public (which, I ag=
ree, is an<br>&gt; important step in pulling off a hardfork) while people w=
ho actually<br>&gt; study the issues are left wondering why they&#39;re bei=
ng ignored (ie why is<br>&gt; there no consensus-building happening on this=
 list?).<br><br></div>This sub-thread threatens to veer off into he-said-sh=
e-said.<br><div><br>&gt; If, instead, there had been an intro on the list a=
s &quot;I think we should<br>&gt; do the blocksize increase soon, what do p=
eople think?&quot;, the response<br>&gt; could likely have focused much mor=
e around creating a specific list of<br>&gt; things we should do before we =
(the technical community) think we are<br>&gt; prepared for a blocksize inc=
rease.<br><br></div><div>Agreed, but that is water under the bridge at this=
 point.=C2=A0 You - rightly - opened the topic here and now we&#39;re discu=
ssing it.<br><br></div><div>Mike and Gavin are due the benefit of doubt bec=
ause making a change to a leaderless automaton powered by leaderless open s=
ource software is breaking new ground.=C2=A0 I don&#39;t focus so much on h=
ow we got to this point, but rather, where we go from here.<br></div><div><=
br>-- <br>Jeff Garzik<br>Bitcoin core developer and open source evangelist<=
br>BitPay, Inc. =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0<a href=3D"https://bitpay.com/">https:/=
/bitpay.com/</a><br><br></div></div>

--001a113d42e0d638b3051582b561--