From: "Jorge Timón" <jtimon@jtimon•cc>
To: Daniele Pinna <daniele.pinna@gmail•com>
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] On the Nature of Miner Advantages in Uncapped Block Size Fee Markets
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2015 19:30:33 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CABm2gDr6TQwDGnYfnCWC7HUWuFXuxdwrG0Q_qJy3pgR-vLAwCw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAEgR2PHggX-8r+FZm=pod9KQv3E3=8wo-9nOB02-YDmy5NGsZQ@mail.gmail.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1300 bytes --]
On Aug 29, 2015 9:43 AM, "Daniele Pinna via bitcoin-dev" <
bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> This work has vacuumed my entire life for the past two weeks leading me
to lag behind on a lot of work. I apologize for typos which I may not have
seen. I stand by for any comments the community may have and look forward
to reigniting consideration of a block size scaling proposal (BIP101)
which, due to the XT fork drama, I believe has been placed hastily and
undeservedly on the chopping block.
I don't like relying on exponential growth (that's why I don't like neither
Gavin's 101 nor Pieter's 103).
But I don't think it's too late to turn bip101 into just another proposal
for an uncontroversial hardfork (changing the 75% to 95% would be the first
step) and xt into just another software fork.
My favorite one so far is bip102 (even though I still consider "2mb now"
arbitrary and I'm worried about making mining centralization even worse
than it is now), but if it was framed as a schism hardfork like bip101 I
would also warn about the dangers of a schism hardfork for it.
>
https://www.scribd.com/doc/276849939/On-the-Nature-of-Miner-Advantages-in-Uncapped-Block-Size-Fee-Markets
I'll read it to try to understand your claims. Are you presentung this in
the scaling workshop?
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1669 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-08-29 17:30 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-08-29 16:43 Daniele Pinna
2015-08-29 17:30 ` Jorge Timón [this message]
2015-08-29 21:07 ` Matt Corallo
2015-08-29 23:17 ` Peter R
2015-08-30 2:33 ` Matt Corallo
2015-08-30 2:35 ` Matt Corallo
2015-08-30 3:08 ` Peter R
2015-08-30 2:49 ` Peter R
2015-08-30 3:56 ` Matt Corallo
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=CABm2gDr6TQwDGnYfnCWC7HUWuFXuxdwrG0Q_qJy3pgR-vLAwCw@mail.gmail.com \
--to=jtimon@jtimon$(echo .)cc \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=daniele.pinna@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