From: alp alp <alp.bitcoin@gmail•com>
To: Andrew Johnson <andrew.johnson83@gmail•com>
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] A Modified Version of Luke-jr's Block Size BIP
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2017 09:57:21 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAMBsKS-Zek5qHB=Yvf0=8EKZkZL8qxAK3n=Cn7Kq6GCwt774_w@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAAy62_LcpgXss9hMTG_kwoGbuTOmfpmEc-awi5gNybq0fYErfQ@mail.gmail.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2458 bytes --]
10% is not a tiny minority.
On Feb 8, 2017 9:51 AM, "Andrew Johnson" <andrew.johnson83@gmail•com> wrote:
> You're never going to reach 100% agreement, and stifling the network
> literally forever to please a tiny minority is daft.
>
> On Feb 8, 2017 8:52 AM, "alp alp via bitcoin-dev" <bitcoin-dev@lists.
> linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> 10% say literally never. That seems like a significant disenfranchisement
> and lack of consensus.
>
> On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 2:25 PM, t. khan via bitcoin-dev <
> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 2:53 PM, Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr•org> wrote:
>>
>>> On Monday, February 06, 2017 6:19:43 PM you wrote:
>>> > >My BIP draft didn't make progress because the community opposes any
>>> block
>>> > >size increase hardfork ever.
>>> >
>>> > Luke, how do you know the community opposes that? Specifically, how
>>> did you
>>> > come to this conclusion?
>>>
>>> http://www.strawpoll.me/12228388/r
>>
>>
>> That poll shows 63% of votes want a larger than 1 MB block by this
>> summer. How do you go from that to "the community opposes any block
>> increase ever"? It shows the exact opposite of that.
>>
>>
>>> > >Your version doesn't address the current block size
>>> > >issues (ie, the blocks being too large).
>>> >
>>> > Why do you think blocks are "too large"? Please cite some evidence.
>>> I've
>>> > asked this before and you ignored it, but an answer would be helpful
>>> to the
>>> > discussion.
>>>
>>> Full node count is far below the safe minimum of 85% of economic
>>> activity.
>>>
>>
>> Is this causing a problem now? If so, what?
>>
>>
>>> Typically reasons given for people not using full nodes themselves come
>>> down
>>> to the high resource requirements caused by the block size.
>>
>>
>> The reason people stop running nodes is because there's no incentive to
>> counteract the resource costs. Attempting to solve this by making blocks
>> *smaller* is like curing a disease by killing the patient. (Incentivizing
>> full node operation would fix that problem.)
>>
>> - t.k.
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
>
>
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 5234 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-02-08 15:57 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-02-05 21:50 Andrew C
2017-02-05 23:02 ` Luke Dashjr
2017-02-05 23:53 ` Andrew C
[not found] ` <C5621135-FBC8-44E7-9EC0-AFDEEBB6031E@thomaslerin.io>
2017-02-06 21:00 ` Andrew C
2017-02-06 18:19 ` t. khan
[not found] ` <201702061953.40774.luke@dashjr.org>
2017-02-06 20:25 ` t. khan
2017-02-08 14:44 ` alp alp
2017-02-08 15:51 ` Andrew Johnson
2017-02-08 15:57 ` alp alp [this message]
2017-02-08 16:28 ` Andrew Johnson
2017-02-08 18:16 ` alp alp
2017-02-08 19:53 ` t. khan
2017-02-08 19:56 ` Andrew Johnson
2017-02-08 20:13 ` alp alp
2017-02-10 10:33 ` Btc Drak
2017-02-10 4:10 Ryan J Martin
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='CAMBsKS-Zek5qHB=Yvf0=8EKZkZL8qxAK3n=Cn7Kq6GCwt774_w@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=alp.bitcoin@gmail$(echo .)com \
--cc=andrew.johnson83@gmail$(echo .)com \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
/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