Eric Lombrozo [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: đź“… Original date posted:2015-06-15 đź“ť Original message:> On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at ...
đź“… Original date posted:2015-06-15
đź“ť Original message:> On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 1:08 AM, Eric Lombrozo <elombrozo at gmail.com <mailto:elombrozo at gmail.com>> wrote:
> 2) BIP100 has direct economic consequences…and particularly for miners. It lends itself to much greater corruptibility.
>
>
> What is the alternative? Have a Chief Scientist or Technical Advisory Board choose what is a proper fee, what is a proper level of decentralization, a proper growth factor?
> On Jun 13, 2015, at 10:36 PM, Jeff Garzik <jgarzik at bitpay.com> wrote:
>
> The choice is very real and on-point. What should the block size limit be? Why?
>
> There is a large consensus that it needs increasing. To what? By what factor?
To be clear, Jeff, I am 100% in agreement with you that a mechanism like what you’re proposing is a million times better than having high priests that ram hard forks without proper consensus. And perhaps given the present circumstances it seems like the only alternative. However, in my mind this block size limit controversy is actually a fairly superficial aspect - a mere symptom, a manifestation of the real problem...
What I find somewhat irksome is that we’ve had six years to figure out a mechanism to enable hard forks (which we knew from the start would be inevitable) - and more to the point, we’ve known about this block size issue from the start as well…and only suddenly it becomes an issue of major urgency that we must bump up this parameter 20x…
- Eric Lombrozo
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150614/012fa37c/attachment.html>;
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 842 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150614/012fa37c/attachment.sig>;
đź“ť Original message:> On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 1:08 AM, Eric Lombrozo <elombrozo at gmail.com <mailto:elombrozo at gmail.com>> wrote:
> 2) BIP100 has direct economic consequences…and particularly for miners. It lends itself to much greater corruptibility.
>
>
> What is the alternative? Have a Chief Scientist or Technical Advisory Board choose what is a proper fee, what is a proper level of decentralization, a proper growth factor?
> On Jun 13, 2015, at 10:36 PM, Jeff Garzik <jgarzik at bitpay.com> wrote:
>
> The choice is very real and on-point. What should the block size limit be? Why?
>
> There is a large consensus that it needs increasing. To what? By what factor?
To be clear, Jeff, I am 100% in agreement with you that a mechanism like what you’re proposing is a million times better than having high priests that ram hard forks without proper consensus. And perhaps given the present circumstances it seems like the only alternative. However, in my mind this block size limit controversy is actually a fairly superficial aspect - a mere symptom, a manifestation of the real problem...
What I find somewhat irksome is that we’ve had six years to figure out a mechanism to enable hard forks (which we knew from the start would be inevitable) - and more to the point, we’ve known about this block size issue from the start as well…and only suddenly it becomes an issue of major urgency that we must bump up this parameter 20x…
- Eric Lombrozo
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150614/012fa37c/attachment.html>;
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 842 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150614/012fa37c/attachment.sig>;