From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd•org>
To: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@gmail•com>
Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP 102 - kick the can down the road to 2MB
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 22:30:25 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <B4B9D029-06BB-4049-966F-A5F9F34C68F4@petertodd.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CADm_WcZDLfAwCJn8qc1Myp-OQhgPzx+A7b6nw8u9Z7mgQ6hveg@mail.gmail.com>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
Sorry, but I think you need to re-read my first message. What you've written below has nothing to do with what I actually said re: how you're BIP102 and associated pull-req doesn't measure miner consensus.
On 22 July 2015 13:43:19 GMT-04:00, Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@gmail•com> wrote:
>On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 6:58 AM, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev <
>bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
>> I don't agree with you at all.
>>
>> This is a case where if Jeff doesn't understand that issue, he's
>> proposing changes that he's not competent enough to understand, and
>it'd
>> save us a lot of review effort if he left that discussion. Equally,
>Jeff
>> is in a position in the dev community where he should be that
>competent;
>> if he actually isn't it does a lot of good for the broader community
>to
>> change that opinion.
>>
>> I personally *don't* think he's doing that, rather I believe he knows
>> full well it's a bad patch and is proposing it because he wants to
>push
>> discussion towards a solution. Often trolling the a audience with bad
>> patches is an effective way to motivate people to respond by writing
>> better ones; Jeff has told me he often does exactly that.
>>
>>
>mmmm kay. Let's try to keep it technical, please.
>
>2MB is a limit that has been discussed as a viable next-step, meeting
>with
>the most consensus.
>
>2MB gets beyond the 1MB hard fork issue, while still remaining within a
>safety cap that should ensure the system does not go "off the rails" as
>some has predicted.
>
>Security, privacy and centralization are not going to disappear at 2MB.
>
>Further, a limited step gains valuable field data for judging whether
>further steps are warranted - thus informing the "better block size
>solution" development process.
>
>Finally, as stated in the initial PR, it is intended as a viable
>fallback
>should we reach a point of criticality where the user community feels a
>block size increase is warranted, yet cannot reach consensus on a
>fancy,
>all-consuming solution be it 20MB, flexcap, BIP 100, BIP 102, etc.
>
>I am open to suggestions for improving BIP 102. The goal is a minimum
>complexity fallback that others have previously agreed was a useful
>kick-the-can compromise - a static 2MB cap.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iQE9BAEBCAAnIBxQZXRlciBUb2RkIDxwZXRlQHBldGVydG9kZC5vcmc+BQJVsBl2
AAoJEMCF8hzn9Lnc47AIAICM9pA+Jc6rkJ14U0vYqzhwTHmxuaNTXodmI1z88OKM
zCCJQHNw/Xhy339/ZGFeUuVS/Csw275dtzZutLoZamnGnQLh9LllxYFzN8eGJkCL
Ecfo0JcyhduwUihgDfzgE++z5/Q0z5sIo+pZBNipqXW1+N0P/GAvYlHqeb9r0uXG
ccJghZUTwqzm6aySfvXVveTmp0AtjVko1jP1sTxF2pI/RIqBdMY4wEsZvmEhX7Tk
g2iRiPWiEIYR1qETm6e5aQ/tj8W73932s15ozIM35nD5QId5qotQHTVttLAruQvl
2Z35F79TIYDvYtnnRNWIsOyiwreH/y5c0kSUIgrjASA=
=+jTv
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-07-22 22:30 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 29+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-07-17 15:55 Jeff Garzik
2015-07-17 16:11 ` Andrew
2015-07-17 16:12 ` Tier Nolan
2015-07-17 16:14 ` Tier Nolan
2015-07-17 17:57 ` Ross Nicoll
2015-07-17 19:06 ` Chris Wardell
2015-07-17 19:13 ` Ross Nicoll
2015-07-19 22:51 ` Ross Nicoll
2015-07-21 9:26 ` Jorge Timón
2015-07-21 13:04 ` Peter Todd
2015-07-21 13:58 ` Peter Todd
2015-07-22 15:51 ` Tom Harding
2015-07-22 17:02 ` Sriram Karra
2015-07-22 17:40 ` Sriram Karra
2015-07-22 17:43 ` Jeff Garzik
2015-07-22 22:30 ` Peter Todd [this message]
2015-07-23 5:39 ` jl2012
2015-07-22 17:00 ` jl2012
2015-07-21 22:05 ` Ross Nicoll
2015-07-23 11:24 ` Jorge Timón
2015-07-17 20:29 ` Luke Dashjr
2015-07-17 21:13 ` Angel Leon
2015-07-17 22:25 ` Tier Nolan
2015-07-18 9:22 ` Jorge Timón
2015-07-18 9:24 ` Jorge Timón
2015-07-24 8:52 ` Thomas Zander
2015-07-24 9:43 ` Slurms MacKenzie
2015-07-18 4:32 ` Venzen Khaosan
2015-07-17 22:40 Raystonn
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=B4B9D029-06BB-4049-966F-A5F9F34C68F4@petertodd.org \
--to=pete@petertodd$(echo .)org \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=jgarzik@gmail$(echo .)com \
/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