📅 Original date posted:2017-02-08
📝 Original message:>Only the majority needs to consent, though what is considered a majority
varies depending on the context (95%, 75%, 51%). Nowhere does it say
"everyone needs to agree".
There's a pretty huge gap between 90% and nearly 100%. 90% excluding 10%
only 7 times results in only 48% of the original base.
>If a small dissenting minority can block all forward progress then bitcoin
is no longer interesting.
Your definition of forward may be different than other users.
>Is that really the bitcoin that you want to be a part of?
Yes, I chose Bitcoin because it relies on a strictly held consensus
mechanism and not one that changes on the whims of the majority. We have
tens of dozens of political currencies for that.
>When the 1MB cap was implemented it was stated specifically that we could
increase it when we needed it. The white paper even talks about scaling to
huge capacity. Not sure where you got the idea that we all agreed to stay
at 1MB forever, I certainly didn't. It was never stated or implied that we
could change the coin cap later(please cite if I'm mistaken).
The community has not agreed that it is needed at this time. Perhaps they
will change their mind at some point in the future. We have also learned a
great deal since the publication of the initial whitepaper, such as the
unstable state without a backlog or subsidy. Fortunately, participation in
this system is voluntary, and you are free to leave at any time.
This seems to be venturing quite off topic, and perhaps would be better
suited for the bitcoin-discuss list.
On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 1:56 PM, Andrew Johnson <andrew.johnson83 at gmail.com>
wrote:
> If a small dissenting minority can block all forward progress then bitcoin
> is no longer interesting. What an incredibly simple attack vector...
>
> No need to break any cryptography, find a bug to exploit, build tens of
> millions of dollars in mining hardware, spend lots of bitcoin on fees to
> flood the network, or be clever or expend any valuable resources in any
> way, shape, or form.
>
> Just convince(or pay, if you do want to expend some resources) a few
> people(or make up a few online personas) to staunchly refuse to accept
> anything at all and the entire system is stuck in 2013(when we first
> started widely discussing a blocksize increase seriously).
>
> Is that really the bitcoin that you want to be a part of?
>
> When the 1MB cap was implemented it was stated specifically that we could
> increase it when we needed it. The white paper even talks about scaling to
> huge capacity. Not sure where you got the idea that we all agreed to stay
> at 1MB forever, I certainly didn't. It was never stated or implied that we
> could change the coin cap later(please cite if I'm mistaken).
>
>
> On Feb 8, 2017 12:16 PM, "alp alp" <alp.bitcoin at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Doing nothing is the rules we all agreed to. If those rules are to be
> changed,nearly everyone will need to consent. The same rule applies to the
> cap, we all agreed to 21m, and if someone wants to change that, nearly
> everyone would need to agree.
>
>
> On Feb 8, 2017 10:28 AM, "Andrew Johnson" <andrew.johnson83 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> It is when you're talking about making a choice and 6.3x more people
> prefer something else. Doing nothing is a choice as well.
>
> Put another way, if 10% supported increasing the 21M coin cap and 63% were
> against, would you seriously consider doing it?
>
> On Feb 8, 2017 9:57 AM, "alp alp" <alp.bitcoin at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 10% is not a tiny minority.
>>
>> On Feb 8, 2017 9:51 AM, "Andrew Johnson" <andrew.johnson83 at 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 at 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 at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 2:53 PM, Luke Dashjr <luke at 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 at lists.linuxfoundation.org
>>>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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/20170208/672a9a83/attachment-0001.html>;
alp alp [ARCHIVE] /
npub1gy…k2e7m
2023-06-07 17:56:06
in reply to nevent1q…3y2x
Author Public Key
npub1gypeuzg0qxz690sgg2xquge5h237cxxk52hvypknnwh0elmhwz2s7k2e7mSeen on
wss://relay.nostr.bandPublished at
2023-06-07 17:56:06Event JSON
{
"id": "db61c6cd487b0ee90c567737df912b7dc367e268a094dc3c2335051145f37743",
"pubkey": "41039e090f0185a2be08428c0e2334baa3ec18d6a2aec206d39baefcff777095",
"created_at": 1686160566,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"6eddf1a13d41cd54af30531855ceb7d14eb31ca00a80520a5a643c560fb7dfbd",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"fe39eccb25f6d91702249845c83cc9956ffb6b43d4a2d790dcf30112789e764f",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"fa69268781de33f116b423cab175d976820851d6b074d0873c920c6983eb4713"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2017-02-08\n📝 Original message:\u003eOnly the majority needs to consent, though what is considered a majority\nvaries depending on the context (95%, 75%, 51%). Nowhere does it say\n\"everyone needs to agree\".\n\nThere's a pretty huge gap between 90% and nearly 100%. 90% excluding 10%\nonly 7 times results in only 48% of the original base.\n\n\u003eIf a small dissenting minority can block all forward progress then bitcoin\nis no longer interesting.\n\nYour definition of forward may be different than other users.\n\n\u003eIs that really the bitcoin that you want to be a part of?\n\nYes, I chose Bitcoin because it relies on a strictly held consensus\nmechanism and not one that changes on the whims of the majority. We have\ntens of dozens of political currencies for that.\n\n\u003eWhen the 1MB cap was implemented it was stated specifically that we could\nincrease it when we needed it. The white paper even talks about scaling to\nhuge capacity. Not sure where you got the idea that we all agreed to stay\nat 1MB forever, I certainly didn't. It was never stated or implied that we\ncould change the coin cap later(please cite if I'm mistaken).\n\nThe community has not agreed that it is needed at this time. Perhaps they\nwill change their mind at some point in the future. We have also learned a\ngreat deal since the publication of the initial whitepaper, such as the\nunstable state without a backlog or subsidy. Fortunately, participation in\nthis system is voluntary, and you are free to leave at any time.\n\nThis seems to be venturing quite off topic, and perhaps would be better\nsuited for the bitcoin-discuss list.\n\nOn Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 1:56 PM, Andrew Johnson \u003candrew.johnson83 at gmail.com\u003e\nwrote:\n\n\u003e If a small dissenting minority can block all forward progress then bitcoin\n\u003e is no longer interesting. What an incredibly simple attack vector...\n\u003e\n\u003e No need to break any cryptography, find a bug to exploit, build tens of\n\u003e millions of dollars in mining hardware, spend lots of bitcoin on fees to\n\u003e flood the network, or be clever or expend any valuable resources in any\n\u003e way, shape, or form.\n\u003e\n\u003e Just convince(or pay, if you do want to expend some resources) a few\n\u003e people(or make up a few online personas) to staunchly refuse to accept\n\u003e anything at all and the entire system is stuck in 2013(when we first\n\u003e started widely discussing a blocksize increase seriously).\n\u003e\n\u003e Is that really the bitcoin that you want to be a part of?\n\u003e\n\u003e When the 1MB cap was implemented it was stated specifically that we could\n\u003e increase it when we needed it. The white paper even talks about scaling to\n\u003e huge capacity. Not sure where you got the idea that we all agreed to stay\n\u003e at 1MB forever, I certainly didn't. It was never stated or implied that we\n\u003e could change the coin cap later(please cite if I'm mistaken).\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e On Feb 8, 2017 12:16 PM, \"alp alp\" \u003calp.bitcoin at gmail.com\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\n\u003e Doing nothing is the rules we all agreed to. If those rules are to be\n\u003e changed,nearly everyone will need to consent. The same rule applies to the\n\u003e cap, we all agreed to 21m, and if someone wants to change that, nearly\n\u003e everyone would need to agree.\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e On Feb 8, 2017 10:28 AM, \"Andrew Johnson\" \u003candrew.johnson83 at gmail.com\u003e\n\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\n\u003e It is when you're talking about making a choice and 6.3x more people\n\u003e prefer something else. Doing nothing is a choice as well.\n\u003e\n\u003e Put another way, if 10% supported increasing the 21M coin cap and 63% were\n\u003e against, would you seriously consider doing it?\n\u003e\n\u003e On Feb 8, 2017 9:57 AM, \"alp alp\" \u003calp.bitcoin at gmail.com\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\n\u003e\u003e 10% is not a tiny minority.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e On Feb 8, 2017 9:51 AM, \"Andrew Johnson\" \u003candrew.johnson83 at gmail.com\u003e\n\u003e\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e You're never going to reach 100% agreement, and stifling the network\n\u003e\u003e\u003e literally forever to please a tiny minority is daft.\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e On Feb 8, 2017 8:52 AM, \"alp alp via bitcoin-dev\" \u003c\n\u003e\u003e\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e 10% say literally never. That seems like a significant\n\u003e\u003e\u003e disenfranchisement and lack of consensus.\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 2:25 PM, t. khan via bitcoin-dev \u003c\n\u003e\u003e\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 2:53 PM, Luke Dashjr \u003cluke at dashjr.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e On Monday, February 06, 2017 6:19:43 PM you wrote:\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e \u003e \u003eMy BIP draft didn't make progress because the community opposes any\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e block\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e \u003e \u003esize increase hardfork ever.\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e \u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e \u003e Luke, how do you know the community opposes that? Specifically, how\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e did you\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e \u003e come to this conclusion?\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e http://www.strawpoll.me/12228388/r\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e That poll shows 63% of votes want a larger than 1 MB block by this\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e summer. How do you go from that to \"the community opposes any block\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e increase ever\"? It shows the exact opposite of that.\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e \u003e \u003eYour version doesn't address the current block size\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e \u003e \u003eissues (ie, the blocks being too large).\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e \u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e \u003e Why do you think blocks are \"too large\"? Please cite some evidence.\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e I've\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e \u003e asked this before and you ignored it, but an answer would be helpful\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e to the\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e \u003e discussion.\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e Full node count is far below the safe minimum of 85% of economic\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e activity.\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e Is this causing a problem now? If so, what?\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e Typically reasons given for people not using full nodes themselves\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e come down\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e to the high resource requirements caused by the block size.\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e The reason people stop running nodes is because there's no incentive to\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e counteract the resource costs. Attempting to solve this by making blocks\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e *smaller* is like curing a disease by killing the patient. (Incentivizing\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e full node operation would fix that problem.)\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e - t.k.\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e\u003e\u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e\u003e\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e\u003e\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20170208/672a9a83/attachment-0001.html\u003e",
"sig": "57bc68cc98eedb30782d2b057ca00361785bd09755d3ba6a147a83aa1adbe0900e3671fead82ceb7ffcf1f08d1e778079440a903c70591c82f8f2507d46c64f5"
}