Jorge Timón [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2015-08-29 📝 Original message:On Aug 29, 2015 9:43 AM, ...
📅 Original date posted:2015-08-29
📝 Original message:On Aug 29, 2015 9:43 AM, "Daniele Pinna via bitcoin-dev" <
bitcoin-dev at 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?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150829/499622e0/attachment.html>;
📝 Original message:On Aug 29, 2015 9:43 AM, "Daniele Pinna via bitcoin-dev" <
bitcoin-dev at 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?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150829/499622e0/attachment.html>;