📅 Original date posted:2015-07-31 📝 Original message:Having said that, I must ...

Eric Lombrozo [ARCHIVE] /

npub1azv…2krq

2023-06-07 15:43:51

in reply to nevent1q…jw0t

📅 Original date posted:2015-07-31
📝 Original message:Having said that, I must admit that the complex filtering mechanisms are
pretty clever...they almost make it practical to use SPV...now if only we
were committint to structures that can prove the validity of returned
datasets and miners actually validated stuff, it might also offer some
level of security.
On Jul 31, 2015 1:45 PM, "Eric Lombrozo" <elombrozo at gmail.com> wrote:

> I would love to be able to increase block size. But I have serious doubts
> about being able to do this safely at this time given what we presently
> know about the Bitcoin network. And I'm pretty sure I'm not alone in this
> sentiment.
>
> Had we been working on fixing the known issues that most complicate bigger
> blocks in the last six years, or even in the last three years after many
> issues had already been well-identified, perhaps we'd be ready to increase
> the limit. But other things have seemed more important, like specifying the
> use of X.509 overlay protocols or adding complex filtering mechanisms to
> the p2p protocol to make it practical to use tx merkle trees...and as a
> result we're not ready for safely allowing larger blocks.
>
> - Eric
> On Jul 30, 2015 11:43 PM, "Thomas Zander via bitcoin-dev" <
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
>> On Thursday 30. July 2015 16.33.16 Eric Lombrozo via bitcoin-dev wrote:
>> > I don’t think it’s really a matter of whether we agree on whether it’s
>> good
>> > to raise the block size limit, Gavin. I think it’s a matter of a
>> difference
>> > in priorities.
>>
>> Having different priorities is fine, using your time to block peoples
>> attempts
>> to increase block size is not showing different priorities, it shows
>> conflicting
>> priorities.
>> Different priorities means you can trust someone else to do things they
>> care
>> about while you do things you care about.
>> --
>> Thomas Zander
>> _______________________________________________
>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150731/ed77d5ee/attachment.html>;

Author Public Key

npub1azvhdrf9fu6n0tm7yez4j6zcxcedp2ct6nrcq3z74naqs7kgpk8s5t2krq

Show more details

Published at

2023-06-07 15:43:51

Kind type

1 Short Text Note

Event JSON

{ "id": "8bf285d42781561718db0645105e3ff7a4237653500ffad645dd73181abf6046", "pubkey": "e899768d254f3537af7e26455968583632d0ab0bd4c780445eacfa087ac80d8f", "created_at": 1686152631, "kind": 1, "tags": [ [ "e", "78a0486a22513a5dc11dcf66d2407a7e121084a44d2ff4e480cb77dad38c8ddd", "", "root" ], [ "e", "f3be9aa1e614cc93ce5a90d0cd910d0623117e28f1d16451f5383baf821659b1", "", "reply" ], [ "p", "e899768d254f3537af7e26455968583632d0ab0bd4c780445eacfa087ac80d8f" ] ], "content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-07-31\n📝 Original message:Having said that, I must admit that the complex filtering mechanisms are\npretty clever...they almost make it practical to use SPV...now if only we\nwere committint to structures that can prove the validity of returned\ndatasets and miners actually validated stuff, it might also offer some\nlevel of security.\nOn Jul 31, 2015 1:45 PM, \"Eric Lombrozo\" \u003celombrozo at gmail.com\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e I would love to be able to increase block size. But I have serious doubts\n\u003e about being able to do this safely at this time given what we presently\n\u003e know about the Bitcoin network. And I'm pretty sure I'm not alone in this\n\u003e sentiment.\n\u003e\n\u003e Had we been working on fixing the known issues that most complicate bigger\n\u003e blocks in the last six years, or even in the last three years after many\n\u003e issues had already been well-identified, perhaps we'd be ready to increase\n\u003e the limit. But other things have seemed more important, like specifying the\n\u003e use of X.509 overlay protocols or adding complex filtering mechanisms to\n\u003e the p2p protocol to make it practical to use tx merkle trees...and as a\n\u003e result we're not ready for safely allowing larger blocks.\n\u003e\n\u003e - Eric\n\u003e On Jul 30, 2015 11:43 PM, \"Thomas Zander via bitcoin-dev\" \u003c\n\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\n\u003e\u003e On Thursday 30. July 2015 16.33.16 Eric Lombrozo via bitcoin-dev wrote:\n\u003e\u003e \u003e I don’t think it’s really a matter of whether we agree on whether it’s\n\u003e\u003e good\n\u003e\u003e \u003e to raise the block size limit, Gavin. I think it’s a matter of a\n\u003e\u003e difference\n\u003e\u003e \u003e in priorities.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e Having different priorities is fine, using your time to block peoples\n\u003e\u003e attempts\n\u003e\u003e to increase block size is not showing different priorities, it shows\n\u003e\u003e conflicting\n\u003e\u003e priorities.\n\u003e\u003e Different priorities means you can trust someone else to do things they\n\u003e\u003e care\n\u003e\u003e about while you do things you care about.\n\u003e\u003e --\n\u003e\u003e Thomas Zander\n\u003e\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e\u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150731/ed77d5ee/attachment.html\u003e", "sig": "e3ccb2ebdc718efddd70aa95f1eb389ac6d97e435def86ab6aa6e6ed3900763910e2b5750e7f540d20f0889ecfd8a7c8573a13ac8539ce2bf31810f44dea974c" }