Forgot to include the list. 


From: Jean-Paul Kogelman <jeanpaulkogelman@me.com>
Date: July 31, 2015 at 4:02:20 PM PDT
To: Jorge Timón <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
Cc: milly@bitcoins.info
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Why Satoshi's temporary anti-spam measure isn't temporary


I wrote about this a earlier this month: http://www.mail-archive.com/bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org/msg00383.html

You basically want 3 things:

- A Minimum Specification of hardware: This is the lowest hardware configuration Bitcoin Core will run on at maximum capacity.
- A theoretical model that takes into account all of the components in Bitcoin Core and how they affect Min Spec.
- A benchmark tool to measure how changes affect Min Spec (and for users to see how their hardware measures up to Min Spec).

jp

On Jul 31, 2015, at 02:31 PM, Jorge Timón via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 2:15 AM, Milly Bitcoin via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
These are the types of things I have been discussing in relation to a
process:

-A list of metrics
-A Risk analysis of the baseline system. Bitcoin as it is now.
-Mitigation strategies for each risk.
-A set of goals.
-A Road map for each goal that lists the changes or possible avenues to
achieve that goal.

Proposed changes would be measured against the same metrics and a risk
analysis done so it can be compared with the baseline.

For example, the block size debate would be discussed in the context of a
road map related to a goal of increase scaling. One of the metrics would be
a decentralization metric. (A framework for a decentralization metric is at
http://www.hks.harvard.edu/fs/pnorris/Acrobat/stm103%20articles/Schneider_Decentralization.pdf).
Cost would be one aspect of the decentralization metric.

All this sounds very reasonable and useful.
And if a formal organization owns this "process", that's fine as well.
I still think hardforks need to be uncontroversial (using the vague "I
will know it when I see it" defintion) and no individual or
organization can be an "ultimate decider" or otherwise Bitcoin losses
all it's p2p nature (and this seems the point where you, Milly, and I
disagree).
But metrics and data tend to help when it comes to "I will know it
when I see it" and "evidences".
So, yes, by all means, let's have an imperfect decentralization metric
rather than not having anything to compare proposals. Competing
decentralization metrics can appear later: we need a first one first.
I would add that we should have sets of simulations being used to
calculate some of those metrics, but maybe I'm just going too deep
into details.
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev