📅 Original date posted:2015-12-21
📝 Original message:-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512
On 2015/12/20 20:50, Mark Friedenbach via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> I am fully in support of the plan laid out in "Capacity increases
> for the bitcoin system".
>
> This plan provides real benefit to the ecosystem in solving a
> number of longstanding problems in bitcoin. It improves the
> scalability of bitcoin considerably.
>
> Furthermore it is time that we stop bikeshedding, start
> implementing, and move forward, lest we lose more developers to
> the toxic atmosphere this hard-fork debacle has created.
Another +1 here. While I'd still like to see some sort of short-term
bump happen this year - good points have been raised about SegWit
uptake by wallet devs, for one thing - I really do think this is one
of the last pieces of the puzzle that'll make Bitcoin reasonably
stable and robust. If people have legitimate concerns, that's great,
and they should be addressed. I just worry that more navel-gazing and
bikeshedding will play into the hands of those with less than noble
intentions. That and, due to the somewhat complicated nature of
SegWit, it may take time to get skeptical miners and wallet devs on-boar
d.
While we're talking about capacity increases, I'd like to reiterate
that I do think there should be some sort of short-term bump (Jeff's
BIP 102 or his "BIP 202" variant, Dr. Back's 2/4/8 proposal ("BIP
248"), etc.), hopefully chosen by this summer so that everybody can
start to prepare. I believe the KISS theory will work best. I talked
to a couple of miners at Scaling Bitcoin. It was obvious they
generally prefer simple solutions. (For that matter, if I put my
miner's cap on, I prefer simple solutions too!) The research presented
at Scaling Bitcoin regarding block size formulas was quite interesting
and worthy of discussion. The research was also, IMO, nowhere near
ready for consensus. Work and discussions on that front should
certainly continue and push for a more permanent (final?) block size
solution. I just think that, barring some extraordinary solution that
hasn't been widely discussed yet, a permanent solution isn't feasible
right now. A temporary bump isn't ideal. It's just the only thing I've
seen that strikes me as having any real shot at consensus.
- --
- ---
Douglas Roark
Cryptocurrency, network security, travel, and art.
https://onename.com/droark
joroark at vt.edu
PGP key ID: 26623924
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org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=jJzD
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Douglas Roark [ARCHIVE] /
npub12v…dqa4q
2023-06-07 17:45:49
in reply to nevent1q…p46p
Author Public Key
npub12vlytlltjj7g3s227u9jtx2g8qtsu7gscynnn99k808ydr4vygcqvdqa4qPublished at
2023-06-07 17:45:49Event JSON
{
"id": "d8622b3bb8a9fd09c693ae793794f9ebf773955fd137a5889abef98bfd7ccc6a",
"pubkey": "533e45ffeb94bc88c14af70b25994838170e7910c1273994b63bce468eac2230",
"created_at": 1686159949,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"558b0da1f3869961bbef0556878e1dd6b9ae37e86128bc130bab17f5332c918d",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"f17cf988f589c3bf64e9e8a586544fe5cf4224b3daafbe08f040d206ddbe3d0f",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"1c61d995949cbfaf14f767784e166bde865c7b8783d7aa3bf0a1d014b70c0069"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-12-21\n📝 Original message:-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----\nHash: SHA512\n\nOn 2015/12/20 20:50, Mark Friedenbach via bitcoin-dev wrote:\n\u003e I am fully in support of the plan laid out in \"Capacity increases \n\u003e for the bitcoin system\".\n\u003e \n\u003e This plan provides real benefit to the ecosystem in solving a \n\u003e number of longstanding problems in bitcoin. It improves the \n\u003e scalability of bitcoin considerably.\n\u003e \n\u003e Furthermore it is time that we stop bikeshedding, start \n\u003e implementing, and move forward, lest we lose more developers to\n\u003e the toxic atmosphere this hard-fork debacle has created.\n\nAnother +1 here. While I'd still like to see some sort of short-term\nbump happen this year - good points have been raised about SegWit\nuptake by wallet devs, for one thing - I really do think this is one\nof the last pieces of the puzzle that'll make Bitcoin reasonably\nstable and robust. If people have legitimate concerns, that's great,\nand they should be addressed. I just worry that more navel-gazing and\nbikeshedding will play into the hands of those with less than noble\nintentions. That and, due to the somewhat complicated nature of\nSegWit, it may take time to get skeptical miners and wallet devs on-boar\nd.\n\nWhile we're talking about capacity increases, I'd like to reiterate\nthat I do think there should be some sort of short-term bump (Jeff's\nBIP 102 or his \"BIP 202\" variant, Dr. Back's 2/4/8 proposal (\"BIP\n248\"), etc.), hopefully chosen by this summer so that everybody can\nstart to prepare. I believe the KISS theory will work best. I talked\nto a couple of miners at Scaling Bitcoin. It was obvious they\ngenerally prefer simple solutions. (For that matter, if I put my\nminer's cap on, I prefer simple solutions too!) The research presented\nat Scaling Bitcoin regarding block size formulas was quite interesting\nand worthy of discussion. The research was also, IMO, nowhere near\nready for consensus. Work and discussions on that front should\ncertainly continue and push for a more permanent (final?) block size\nsolution. I just think that, barring some extraordinary solution that\nhasn't been widely discussed yet, a permanent solution isn't feasible\nright now. A temporary bump isn't ideal. It's just the only thing I've\nseen that strikes me as having any real shot at consensus.\n\n- -- \n- ---\nDouglas Roark\nCryptocurrency, network security, travel, and art.\nhttps://onename.com/droark\njoroark at vt.edu\nPGP key ID: 26623924\n-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----\nComment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org\n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\n8hwnRV7R8bPdkoIfnc8e\n=jJzD\n-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----",
"sig": "9af036488fc1d41d1ffa8a8f87dbe29f467e5a164a34b50d1325caade4121db904546fefbb5a99a822f94a912412a6c9c5b508e853458f547cc97819f73d1634"
}