public inbox for bitcoindev@googlegroups.com
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Johnathan Corgan <johnathan@corganlabs.com>
To: Peter R <peter_r@gmx.com>
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] How to evaluate block size increase suggestions.
Date: Sat, 14 Nov 2015 22:04:10 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CALOxbZtt8k4Q+h0ZwKDQS7-UUpYKoM0dNd8vXUg5Z9i1MCf_iw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <B2C858C1-B15F-49F1-BF7E-02EA7C3FE474@gmx.com>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2410 bytes --]

This topic is straying from Bitcoin development into general Bitcoin
governance, policy, or other meta-issues.

We have now the new bitcoin-discuss mailing list now, specifically for
these more free-flowing topics:

https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-discuss

Please take further discussion of this thread to that forum.

Thank you,

The bitcoin-dev moderation team


On Sat, Nov 14, 2015 at 1:45 PM, Peter R via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> > It looks like some specific meta-level criteria would help more at this
> point than new proposals all exploring a different variants of block size
> increase schedules.
>
> I agree.  In fact, I’ll go meta on your meta and suggest that we should
> first discuss how Bitcoin should be governed in the first place.  Should
> Bitcoin evolve from the “bottom up,” or from the “top down”?
>
> If one’s answer is from the “top-down,” then the meta-level criteria can
> be endlessly debated, for they all involve some sort of tradeoff, they all
> require some sort of compromise.  The “top down” perspective holds that
> people might make poor choices if given the freedom to easily do so--it
> holds that the trade-offs must be balanced instead by experts.
>
> However, if one's answer is from the “bottom up,” then the meta-level
> criteria is very easy: we do what the people wants. We allow the people to
> weigh the tradeoffs and then we watch as consensus emerges through a
> decentralized process, objectively represented by the longest proof-of-work
> chain.
>
> Regarding the block size limit debate, at the end of the day it comes down
> to two things:
>
> 1.  How big of a block will my node accept today?
>
> 2.  What do I want my node to do if the longest chain includes a block
> larger than the limit I set?
>
> If one concedes that Bitcoin should be governed from the “bottom up,” then
> it is already possible to empower each node operator to more easily express
> his free choice regarding the size of blocks he is willing to accept, while
> simultaneously ensuring that his node tracks consensus.
>
> Best regards,
> Peter
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3609 bytes --]

  reply	other threads:[~2015-11-15  6:04 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2015-11-13 16:37 [bitcoin-dev] How to evaluate block size increase suggestions Emin Gün Sirer
2015-11-13 16:52 ` Angel Leon
2015-11-14 13:48   ` Jorge Timón
2015-11-14 21:45 ` Peter R
2015-11-15  6:04   ` Johnathan Corgan [this message]
     [not found] <mailman.1887.1447451888.1619.bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
2015-11-14 16:08 ` Mariusz Nowostawski

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=CALOxbZtt8k4Q+h0ZwKDQS7-UUpYKoM0dNd8vXUg5Z9i1MCf_iw@mail.gmail.com \
    --to=johnathan@corganlabs.com \
    --cc=bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org \
    --cc=peter_r@gmx.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox