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 30CC4267 for ; Sun, 16 Aug 2015 10:13:52 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-ig0-f171.google.com (mail-ig0-f171.google.com [209.85.213.171]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BE0BEB0 for ; Sun, 16 Aug 2015 10:13:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: by igfj19 with SMTP id j19so37526809igf.1 for ; Sun, 16 Aug 2015 03:13:51 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=mQBn8TFOnj+LuvwVIuhG/kWMIoZJBxo68YqtRgSd2IQ=; b=wUG2VofgHZdWogtHKbEBD6u4bifFAY3nnwcdjEeGX/2n2eIBXfkuIyT/O8P5TsOeJy LT766ttcqTzVhew2pXwThl6PGo9pwj7FFrwfdq4Bogf0ZutJie//N7ED5TLCX2anfKON Np67jHis96S6kxQkWTS6u7YMpS+eQQCNrS98PUOUa0rhuHa6g1vp1DGh36sKW6eytrhr nJgQ/TV1DHPQ2d4hKYZ0Z099Fg4JkJTLVCOcKgD+3hUjGVuI6Ywsrkud21GaareoJhbZ 4jPwPJPSyK0bpRJu6V49nGLo92fR8eGs5F/jk2Mxw+FO6bfiwDvcBlSv4K74cOqzFT1f et/g== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.50.153.75 with SMTP id ve11mr10675598igb.52.1439720031189; Sun, 16 Aug 2015 03:13:51 -0700 (PDT) Sender: akaramaoun@gmail.com Received: by 10.107.151.195 with HTTP; Sun, 16 Aug 2015 03:13:51 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <1527744.9EQbJdl4Dy@1337h4x0r> References: <1527744.9EQbJdl4Dy@1337h4x0r> Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2015 10:13:51 +0000 X-Google-Sender-Auth: _GbiQruQ3-FCm9m4VYn1LME7zWE Message-ID: From: Andrew To: xor@freenetproject.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0141aa08090282051d6af161 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Humans constantly arguing about bsize proves that computers should decide X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2015 10:13:52 -0000 --089e0141aa08090282051d6af161 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 9:46 AM, xor via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > Hey folks, > > so you've been stressed with arguing about what to do with the block size > for > months now :( > > Why not realize that the unfruitful permanent need for administrators to > tweak > a magical, god-given (= Satoshi-given) constant is a *strong* indicator for > something which should be delegated to a self-adjusting system instead? > > new_max_blocksize = some_averaging_function(previous_block_sizes); > Not necessarily some_averaging_function. Could also be something that depends on how much work has been put in, i.e. make the miners do more computational work if they want to add bigger blocks into the chain, and the chain doesn't have to be the original chain, it could be a sidechain or block extension, so as to not force people to upgrade. > end_of_flamewar(); > continue_with_REAL_development(); > > Systems which do not require any human intervention are always more > beautiful, > and especially when trying to design a decentralized P2P network :) > > > Greetings, > xor, a developer working for the Freenet anonymous P2P network > > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > > -- PGP: B6AC 822C 451D 6304 6A28 49E9 7DB7 011C D53B 5647 --089e0141aa08090282051d6af161 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 9:46 AM, xor via bitcoin-dev = <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
Hey folks,

so you've been stressed with arguing about what to do with the block si= ze for
months now :(

Why not realize that the unfruitful permanent need for administrators to tw= eak
a magical, god-given (=3D Satoshi-given) constant is a *strong* indicator f= or
something which should be delegated to a self-adjusting system instead?

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 new_max_blocksize =3D some_averaging_function(previous_block_= sizes);
Not necessarily some_averaging_function. Could= also be something that depends on how much work has been put in, i.e. make= the miners do more computational work if they want to add bigger blocks in= to the chain, and the chain doesn't have to be the original chain, it c= ould be a sidechain or block extension, so as to not force people to upgrad= e.
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 end_of_flamewar();
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 continue_with_REAL_development();

Systems which do not require any human intervention are always more beautif= ul,
and especially when trying to design a decentralized P2P network :)


Greetings,
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 xor, a developer working for the Freenet anonym= ous P2P network


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




--
PGP: B6AC 822C 451D 6304 6A28 =C2=A049E9 7DB7 011C D53B 5647
--089e0141aa08090282051d6af161--