From: odinn <odinn.cyberguerrilla@riseup•net>
To: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net>
Subject: [Bitcoin-development] Scope narrowing for proposals to address block size limit debate, an inquiry
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2015 00:27:42 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <558272EE.9040305@riseup.net> (raw)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
The purpose of this post is to present an inquiry related to the
possible narrowing of scope of what sort of proposals are likely to
"bear fruit" at this stage. The inquiry or question is, "Are there
some proposals that are more likely to succeed, in addressing the
whole block size limit debate meaningfully?"
The flip side of this inquiry, is that if you think that an attempt to
do such "scope narrowing" _at this time_ is foolhardy, inappropriate,
wrong, or otherwise flawed, please say so and explain. I'm not
religious about this notion. I throw out proposals below which I
think would be likely to advance further ~ and thus I ask the question
again, and rephrase, "Are there some proposals (some shown below as
examples, not all-inclusive) that are more likely to succeed, in
addressing the whole block size limit debate meaningfully?"
~ Jeff Garzik, with respect to his BIP 100 (note Evan Mo, CEO of
Huobi's mining project Digcoin, clarified that the big Chinese mining
pools consider further adjustments to the protocol beyond the
suggested 8 MB block size limit adjustment — such as the Bitcoin core
developer Jeff Garzik's BIP-100 draft — to be feasible)
~ Adam Back, with a simplified soft-fork one-way peg
~ Gavin Andresen, developing an 8 MB block size limit adjustment in
the context of Core (as an example) with one or more of the above
authors rather than focusing on XT. (This is a big assumption but,
roll with it)
All of this assumes that developer(s) are willing to abandon
intentionally contentious proposals such as the "hard fork to XT w/ 20
MB," remain within the context of Core and be reasonable.
Here I am being aware of the fact that "Pushing a hard fork in the
face of such controversy is a folly, a danger to the network, and that
deserves to be said." - Wladimir J. van der Laan
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin.org/pull/894#issuecomment-112113917
And if I'm lucky, this thread may get comments from DumbFruit, who
writes stuff like this:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1085436.msg11643203#msg11643203
So now... your thoughts?
- --
http://abis.io ~
"a protocol concept to enable decentralization
and expansion of a giving economy, and a new social good"
https://keybase.io/odinn
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJVgnLuAAoJEGxwq/inSG8CchMH/0zm+A7Uqp8SpU+CsJr3lF2+
0re+5Ql4qVVmOI560918BtkdFjcq33jsKU9cYUDXqZ4wHfJTAGLGDqNgUZGpGkmJ
bqGgSvdF64P52Vb9PVnz1I9+aClas8Mjvl8XUYoD0yEA14XVBakYDRbVqZ5yPM8n
hBi6EpWLUnkFvvEj2dkgwddvPCvrnhVL/aRfmhet1pfOELfIrXtXI7hs2F1RyaqK
sbR/Qg3SFlyHzbxSzRVcZQ0G81exq/fxHqxc5kSLMiR7TODIJxCl6cJDCjf8LbeS
n6tL/I8vWN2zraYfb0cWu5uIjz5XnXpsitu951109zoS8IYle3uTfCF+6xdG3tY=
=HQ9R
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
reply other threads:[~2015-06-18 7:27 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: [no followups] expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed
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=558272EE.9040305@riseup.net \
--to=odinn.cyberguerrilla@riseup$(echo .)net \
--cc=bitcoin-development@lists$(echo .)sourceforge.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
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