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 5A1D086 for ; Sun, 15 Nov 2015 06:04:33 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-lb0-f172.google.com (mail-lb0-f172.google.com [209.85.217.172]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5794F87 for ; Sun, 15 Nov 2015 06:04:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: by lbblt2 with SMTP id lt2so73283016lbb.3 for ; Sat, 14 Nov 2015 22:04:30 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=corganlabs_com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=b1bnoduUANhwhDNrgGxPtGsKF3N3kdsSLGGLYcWrJ4o=; b=QU+RjJMSvWLUPyOyHBQvyGEmVclf5oEfPwXiqX6rtkXtCutkT/WusKcDz11qtxdQJq q2F4HsYvhXlYSmiXZjJhLj8F4yrR6sNeU4MpGtaYJU/AMzSggku42KvNYe+imtFP8MuT jUCls47vOBhl6cvza718qNF9qWQU8DEUqjFm+u+vjoGiK99KwEKAxcuWvtN9YKbzlKDc S7femcCpIRDc6TXs16T3T3fHHXGEZDLfiDVi1DrUg9RihN3vSTeRQ/SlWV/wPic9ZZ3l vZsmQiyc8J/9LXbgLBII6xdACVcCg9G0ef0vaagQOx7DraVaNnp7Bl03EG1KTZ8R0MM3 DnUA== 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=b1bnoduUANhwhDNrgGxPtGsKF3N3kdsSLGGLYcWrJ4o=; b=aGioW4Q5xHiYsIv7ECApj3pRD8HK1ED+g7Y7xgIGPQ4jUkqdPatorqwi8J42Um1b4a VkxdJ+Zt73WMO2NWWYplHh3mxcL1gQOEDZpHm+ZYFn3lFnaP8saBrZMvv7E+VImcqdve uY3pZW52dJVODdK/ub2azYAO2KF1ogTIeh/bTPMyjzS5+WFdl+3JwU4tP7CTWbXY/wGP gNUGma3deNdJX1zXhJCYZ9NAm5uJ65lu0Rh8GoegMpgbeDf30wDvzZFjvlQwtCCkJoJX yLk23l812KZWpOIyVv1oGWTU1fYvq94ugBWBvU8DHRIcKSWL7S0auNBc8cAIkIzJv0pv uGyA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnELIF9zhFtQYXyERw4aFI4/UG0XZjU4QHwbTlkxGKv5EnYZ/hoBzTdIffIbkFeyJF2tQHf X-Received: by 10.112.135.233 with SMTP id pv9mr14517983lbb.42.1447567470516; Sat, 14 Nov 2015 22:04:30 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.114.186.194 with HTTP; Sat, 14 Nov 2015 22:04:10 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: From: Johnathan Corgan Date: Sat, 14 Nov 2015 22:04:10 -0800 Message-ID: To: Peter R Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e01228934de707705248e108b X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,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 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] How to evaluate block size increase suggestions. 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, 15 Nov 2015 06:04:33 -0000 --089e01228934de707705248e108b Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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=E2=80=99ll 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 =E2=80=9Cbottom up,=E2=80=9D or from the =E2=80= =9Ctop down=E2=80=9D? > > If one=E2=80=99s answer is from the =E2=80=9Ctop-down,=E2=80=9D then the = meta-level criteria can > be endlessly debated, for they all involve some sort of tradeoff, they al= l > require some sort of compromise. The =E2=80=9Ctop down=E2=80=9D perspect= ive 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 =E2=80=9Cbottom up,=E2=80=9D then th= e meta-level > criteria is very easy: we do what the people wants. We allow the people t= o > weigh the tradeoffs and then we watch as consensus emerges through a > decentralized process, objectively represented by the longest proof-of-wo= rk > chain. > > Regarding the block size limit debate, at the end of the day it comes dow= n > 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 =E2=80=9Cbottom = up,=E2=80=9D then > it is already possible to empower each node operator to more easily expre= ss > his free choice regarding the size of blocks he is willing to accept, whi= le > 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 > --089e01228934de707705248e108b Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Thi= s topic is straying from Bitcoin development into general Bitcoin governanc= e, 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
<= /div>

Please take further discussion of this thread to that f= orum.

Thank you,

The bitcoin-dev mo= deration team


On Sat, Nov 14, 2015 at= 1:45 PM, Peter R via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.l= inuxfoundation.org> wrote:
= > It looks like some specific meta-level criteria would= help more at this point than new proposals all exploring a different varia= nts of block size increase schedules.

I agree.=C2=A0 In fact, I=E2=80=99ll go meta on your meta and sugges= t that we should first discuss how Bitcoin should be governed in the first = place.=C2=A0 Should Bitcoin evolve from the =E2=80=9Cbottom up,=E2=80=9D or= from the =E2=80=9Ctop down=E2=80=9D?

If one=E2=80=99s answer is from the =E2=80=9Ctop-down,=E2=80=9D then the me= ta-level criteria can be endlessly debated, for they all involve some sort = of tradeoff, they all require some sort of compromise.=C2=A0 The =E2=80=9Ct= op down=E2=80=9D perspective holds that people might make poor choices if g= iven the freedom to easily do so--it holds that the trade-offs must be bala= nced instead by experts.

However, if one's answer is from the =E2=80=9Cbottom up,=E2=80=9D 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 t= hrough a decentralized process, objectively represented by the longest proo= f-of-work chain.

Regarding the block size limit debate, at the end of the day it comes down = to two things:

1.=C2=A0 How big of a block will my node accept today?

2.=C2=A0 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 =E2=80=9Cbottom up= ,=E2=80=9D then it is already possible to empower each node operator to mor= e 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/mail= man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
--089e01228934de707705248e108b--