From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1Z17jZ-0004zK-V1 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sat, 06 Jun 2015 06:37:33 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.220.54 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.220.54; envelope-from=gappleto97@gmail.com; helo=mail-pa0-f54.google.com; Received: from mail-pa0-f54.google.com ([209.85.220.54]) by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1Z17jY-0000e2-Ak for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sat, 06 Jun 2015 06:37:33 +0000 Received: by padev16 with SMTP id ev16so5499969pad.0 for ; Fri, 05 Jun 2015 23:37:26 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.70.55.165 with SMTP id t5mr11752703pdp.102.1433572646597; Fri, 05 Jun 2015 23:37:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.66.194.168 with HTTP; Fri, 5 Jun 2015 23:37:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.66.194.168 with HTTP; Fri, 5 Jun 2015 23:37:26 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <556CDB09.8050906@henricson.se> Date: Sat, 6 Jun 2015 02:37:26 -0400 Message-ID: From: gabe appleton To: Pindar Wong Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0160bd5e5c3b0e0517d3a4f7 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 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (gappleto97[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 0.2 FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT Envelope-from freemail username ends in digit (gappleto97[at]gmail.com) 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 -0.0 AWL AWL: Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address X-Headers-End: 1Z17jY-0000e2-Ak Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Meta suggestions for this block size debate 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: Sat, 06 Jun 2015 06:37:34 -0000 --089e0160bd5e5c3b0e0517d3a4f7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Please use the one it's originally forked from that Ethan made. I don't want to be the one who sorts through what's valid and what isn't, as I don't have as low-level an understanding as I'd like. I don't feel qualified. On Jun 6, 2015 2:34 AM, "Pindar Wong" wrote: > Thanks Gabe. > > https://github.com/gappleto97/BlockSizeDebate > > github's reachable via vpn. > > p. > > > On Sat, Jun 6, 2015 at 2:28 PM, gabe appleton > wrote: > >> Yeah. We made a git repo instead, so we don't have to bother with the >> exclusive-by-default wiki policies. It's linked in this email chain. >> >> I'll be getting home tomorrow, so I should be able to start back up on >> this. A few days from now we should throw this on /r/Bitcoin so we can get >> some more public comment on it. They already gave me a few leads to chase. >> On Jun 5, 2015 11:34 PM, "Pindar Wong" wrote: >> >>> Gabe, >>> >>> Did you ever get an answer to this? >>> >>> I"ll have some time tomorrow to be able to help with some work on this >>> and will need to do it myself anyways since I'm not sure I understand the >>> nuances, where bitcoin XT fits into the scheme of things (or not) etc. >>> >>> I would have thought that there would be a testnet4 by now using 8mb >>> blocks... but hey that's just me. >>> >>> p. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 11:52 AM, gabe appleton >>> wrote: >>> >>>> I don't have permission to create a page. If someone else does, I'll >>>> happily get a framework started. >>>> >>>> On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 11:32 PM, Ethan Heilman >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I second this, I don't have time to read the large number of emails >>>>> generated every day from the block size debate. A summary of the various >>>>> positions and arguments would be extremely helpful. >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 11:02 PM, gabe appleton >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Also, can we try to get a wiki page for the debate? That way we could >>>>>> condense the information as much as possible. I'll be willing to assist if >>>>>> the page gets approval. >>>>>> On Jun 1, 2015 6:41 PM, "Mats Henricson" wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> My fingers have been itching many times now, this debate >>>>>>> drives me nuts. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I just wish all posters could follow two simple principles: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 1. Read up. Yes. All of what has been written. Yes, it will >>>>>>> take many hours. But if you're rehashing what other >>>>>>> smarter people have said over and over before, you're >>>>>>> wasting hundreds of peoples time. Please don't. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 2. Be helpful. Suggest alternatives. Just cristizising is >>>>>>> just destructive. If you want no change, then say so. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Mats >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> Bitcoin-development mailing list >>>>>>> Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net >>>>>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Bitcoin-development mailing list >>>>>> Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net >>>>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Bitcoin-development mailing list >>>> Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net >>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development >>>> >>>> >>> > --089e0160bd5e5c3b0e0517d3a4f7 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Please use the one it's originally forked from that Etha= n made. I don't want to be the one who sorts through what's valid a= nd what isn't, as I don't have as low-level an understanding as I&#= 39;d like. I don't feel qualified.

On Jun 6, 2015 2:34 AM, "Pindar Wong" = <pindar.wong@gmail.com> = wrote:
github's reachable via vpn.

p.
<= br>

On Sat, = Jun 6, 2015 at 2:28 PM, gabe appleton <gappleto97@gmail.com> wrote:

Yeah. We made a= git repo instead, so we don't have to bother with the exclusive-by-def= ault wiki policies. It's linked in this email chain.

I'll be getting home tomorrow, so I should be able to st= art back up on this. A few days from now we should throw this on /r/Bitcoin= so we can get some more public comment on it. They already gave me a few l= eads to chase.

On Jun 5, 2015 11:34 PM, "Pindar Wong"= <pindar.wong= @gmail.com> wrote:
Gabe,

Did you ever get an ans= wer to this?

I"ll have some time tomorrow to be able to help wi= th some work on this and will need to do it myself anyways since I'm no= t sure I understand the nuances, where bitcoin XT fits into the scheme of t= hings (or not) etc.

I would have thought that there would= be a testnet4 by now using 8mb blocks... but hey that's just me.
<= br>
p.




<= div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 11:52 AM, gabe appleton <gappleto97@gmail.com> wrote:
I don't have permission to create a page. If some= one else does, I'll happily get a framework started.

On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 = at 11:32 PM, Ethan Heilman <eth3rs@gmail.com> wrote:
I second this, I don't have = time to read the large number of emails generated every day from the block = size debate. A summary of the various positions and arguments would be extr= emely helpful.=C2=A0

On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 11:02 PM, gabe appleton <gapp= leto97@gmail.com> wrote:
Also, can we try to get a wiki page for the debate? That way w= e could condense the information as much as possible. I'll be willing t= o assist if the page gets approval.

On Jun 1, 2015 6:41 PM, "Mats Henricson&quo= t; <mats@henricso= n.se> wrote:
= Hi!

My fingers have been itching many times now, this debate
drives me nuts.

I just wish all posters could follow two simple principles:

1. Read up. Yes. All of what has been written. Yes, it will
=C2=A0 =C2=A0take many hours. But if you're rehashing what other
=C2=A0 =C2=A0smarter people have said over and over before, you're
=C2=A0 =C2=A0wasting hundreds of peoples time. Please don't.

2. Be helpful. Suggest alternatives. Just cristizising is
=C2=A0 =C2=A0just destructive. If you want no change, then say so.

Mats

---------------------------------------------------------------------------= ---
_______________________________________________
Bitcoin-development mailing list
Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-de= velopment

-----------------------------------------------------------= -------------------

_______________________________________________
Bitcoin-development mailing list
Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-de= velopment




-----------------------------------------------------------= -------------------

_______________________________________________
Bitcoin-development mailing list
Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-de= velopment



--089e0160bd5e5c3b0e0517d3a4f7--