📅 Original date posted:2015-06-14
📝 Original message:-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
A decentralized, distributed application should offer its users
decentralized, distributed method of weighing in on the direction of
how it evolves as well as having an open development model. The
reference to Facebook and Myspace is completely inapplicable here
because the tyranny of such spaces isn't what we have with bitcoin
(fortunately), nor would we want to try to replicate it, ever, in any
way, shape, or form.
Yes, it does bother (some) people to see the consensus based system
because of the difficulties that can be associated with implementing
it. But that's the way it is. If you don't like consensus based
systems (or decentralized, distributed systems) this is probably the
wrong space for you.
On 06/13/2015 04:57 PM, Raystonn wrote:
> Adding back the list. Did not intend to remove it. Apologies.
>
> On 13 Jun 2015 4:52 pm, Raystonn <raystonn at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Based on my observations, what the majority of Bitcoin users want
> is a system that can carry more transactions per second than any
> existing payment system while retaining most of the security
> offered today. The technicalities on how this is achieved are not
> as important as the end result. If the only user input is to
> technicalities, they will use that to voice their opinions.
>
> On 13 Jun 2015 4:25 pm, Danny Thorpe <danny.thorpe at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> I don't recall Facebook or MySpace asking end users to alter the
> parameters of their respective back-end network infrastructure.
>
> How are Bitcoin end users qualified to make an informed decision
> regarding block size limits? And why should they care?
>
> Sure, I want Bitcoin to grow its user base. But to do that,
> Bitcoin has to be accessible to the nontechnical population.
> Asking nontechnical people to make technical decisions leads
> directly to stress and confusion, which most folks find
> off-putting.
>
> And please don't call me Shirley. ;>
>
> On Sat, Jun 13, 2015 at 3:42 PM, Raystonn <raystonn at hotmail.com
> <mailto:raystonn at hotmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Surely you would prefer to actually have users? Bitcoin does not
> exist in a vacuum. Network effect alone is not enough to ensure
> success in the face of competition from alternatives with a much
> better user experience. See Facebook vs MySpace, IE vs Netscape,
> etc.
>
> On 13 Jun 2015 3:20 pm, Danny Thorpe <danny.thorpe at gmail.com
> <mailto:danny.thorpe at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Please forgive my ignorance, but why should Bitcoin users have a
> say in block size limits? It's the miners and Bitcoin node
> operators that bear the burden of managing large blocks, no?
>
> Users voting on network parameters sounds like neighbors voting on
> how deep my swimming pool should be.
>
> Thanks, -Danny
>
> On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 11:11 AM, Peter Todd <pete at petertodd.org
> <mailto:pete at petertodd.org>> wrote:
>
> Jeff Garzik recently proposed that the upper blocksize limit be
> removed entirely, with a "soft" limit being enforced via miner
> vote, recorded by hashing power.
>
> This mechanism within the protocol for users to have any influence
> over the miner vote. We can add that back by providing a way for
> transactions themselves to set a flag determining whether or not
> they can be included in a block casting a specific vote.
>
> We can simplify Garzik's vote to say that one of the nVersion bits
> either votes for the blocksize to be increased, or decreased, by
> some fixed ratio (e.g 2x or 1/2x) the next interval. Then we can
> use a nVersion bit in transactions themselves, also voting for an
> increase or decrease. Transactions may only be included in blocks
> with an indentical vote, thus providing miners with a monetary
> incentive via fees to vote according to user wishes.
>
> Of course, to cast a "don't care" vote we can either define an
> additional bit, or sign the transaction with both versions.
> Equally we can even have different versions with different fees,
> broadcast via a mechanism such as replace-by-fee.
>
>
> See also John Dillon's proposal for proof-of-stake blocksize
> voting:
>
> https://www.mail-archive.com/bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
/msg02323.html
>
>
>
- -- 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org <http://petertodd.org>;
> 0000000000000000127ab1d576dc851f374424f1269c4700ccaba2c42d97e778
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
- --------
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net
> <mailto:Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net>
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>
>
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
- --------
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>
- --
http://abis.io ~
"a protocol concept to enable decentralization
and expansion of a giving economy, and a new social good"
https://keybase.io/odinn
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJVfQL0AAoJEGxwq/inSG8CRqMH/0l9tHGA8figVGnIBoMgdpVi
uwMGTQTjLUf12/NFS27vT+OLMWqZRvVXvlxDF25N7la+QImhh67LqmQy8fkwGg5T
kJ6MkkFLgy05aqE/X3ywJUifOKmS3Y/RDDUJhrFjjHrsMGoF4ATtVwTpUBLik+kX
G3XRNlInmyB55UEcpyfBg9kfLz8xiy6sBPeaeGnFLCNWTs5TgJ6DTFqhBAAmE8Hw
k0tN6mW3wYS610FFkS2E3+W8O8KGs4oqAYLX/ZQOhX9oKjBvWWI4ppRpSDyBNcxd
A6VAKyU8HCuDHAEwba6gdlUa+yf4qxuZV1KCNENbvtN1CTsJ6oh0OxnEO6dtogo=
=KZmG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
odinn [ARCHIVE] /
npub1xv…5j2ga
2023-06-07 15:37:39
in reply to nevent1q…dq03
Author Public Key
npub1xv3g4rkhj7eyape0cqjhc9g4ljdu5axqkgcdewma854a8r7e0mtsl5j2gaPublished at
2023-06-07 15:37:39Event JSON
{
"id": "d5de0c0a636ac2431cfdeffc23b29d07941c0f4df14deeb4fbacffa47202f65f",
"pubkey": "33228a8ed797b24e872fc0257c1515fc9bca74c0b230dcbb7d3d2bd38fd97ed7",
"created_at": 1686152259,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"8a807127e1ae5b585bcc8f3578413a7d3eb1bd30e75c19cd4a3a0a256adcb61c",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"6b52d795a7fd257a084d182cf2e50acc4c42960b2afc9268d67b887d845dbccf",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"fbac73d2413d23d5b6e60bc431152069981e56a94cd5d626c9e88b6c0a18cbd5"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-06-14\n📝 Original message:-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----\nHash: SHA1\n\nA decentralized, distributed application should offer its users\ndecentralized, distributed method of weighing in on the direction of\nhow it evolves as well as having an open development model. The\nreference to Facebook and Myspace is completely inapplicable here\nbecause the tyranny of such spaces isn't what we have with bitcoin\n(fortunately), nor would we want to try to replicate it, ever, in any\nway, shape, or form.\n\nYes, it does bother (some) people to see the consensus based system\nbecause of the difficulties that can be associated with implementing\nit. But that's the way it is. If you don't like consensus based\nsystems (or decentralized, distributed systems) this is probably the\nwrong space for you.\n\nOn 06/13/2015 04:57 PM, Raystonn wrote:\n\u003e Adding back the list. Did not intend to remove it. Apologies.\n\u003e \n\u003e On 13 Jun 2015 4:52 pm, Raystonn \u003craystonn at hotmail.com\u003e wrote:\n\u003e \n\u003e Based on my observations, what the majority of Bitcoin users want \n\u003e is a system that can carry more transactions per second than any \n\u003e existing payment system while retaining most of the security \n\u003e offered today. The technicalities on how this is achieved are not \n\u003e as important as the end result. If the only user input is to \n\u003e technicalities, they will use that to voice their opinions.\n\u003e \n\u003e On 13 Jun 2015 4:25 pm, Danny Thorpe \u003cdanny.thorpe at gmail.com\u003e \n\u003e wrote:\n\u003e \n\u003e I don't recall Facebook or MySpace asking end users to alter the \n\u003e parameters of their respective back-end network infrastructure.\n\u003e \n\u003e How are Bitcoin end users qualified to make an informed decision \n\u003e regarding block size limits? And why should they care?\n\u003e \n\u003e Sure, I want Bitcoin to grow its user base. But to do that,\n\u003e Bitcoin has to be accessible to the nontechnical population.\n\u003e Asking nontechnical people to make technical decisions leads\n\u003e directly to stress and confusion, which most folks find\n\u003e off-putting.\n\u003e \n\u003e And please don't call me Shirley. ;\u003e\n\u003e \n\u003e On Sat, Jun 13, 2015 at 3:42 PM, Raystonn \u003craystonn at hotmail.com \n\u003e \u003cmailto:raystonn at hotmail.com\u003e\u003e wrote:\n\u003e \n\u003e Surely you would prefer to actually have users? Bitcoin does not \n\u003e exist in a vacuum. Network effect alone is not enough to ensure \n\u003e success in the face of competition from alternatives with a much \n\u003e better user experience. See Facebook vs MySpace, IE vs Netscape, \n\u003e etc.\n\u003e \n\u003e On 13 Jun 2015 3:20 pm, Danny Thorpe \u003cdanny.thorpe at gmail.com \n\u003e \u003cmailto:danny.thorpe at gmail.com\u003e\u003e wrote:\n\u003e \n\u003e Please forgive my ignorance, but why should Bitcoin users have a \n\u003e say in block size limits? It's the miners and Bitcoin node \n\u003e operators that bear the burden of managing large blocks, no?\n\u003e \n\u003e Users voting on network parameters sounds like neighbors voting on \n\u003e how deep my swimming pool should be.\n\u003e \n\u003e Thanks, -Danny\n\u003e \n\u003e On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 11:11 AM, Peter Todd \u003cpete at petertodd.org \n\u003e \u003cmailto:pete at petertodd.org\u003e\u003e wrote:\n\u003e \n\u003e Jeff Garzik recently proposed that the upper blocksize limit be \n\u003e removed entirely, with a \"soft\" limit being enforced via miner \n\u003e vote, recorded by hashing power.\n\u003e \n\u003e This mechanism within the protocol for users to have any influence \n\u003e over the miner vote. We can add that back by providing a way for \n\u003e transactions themselves to set a flag determining whether or not \n\u003e they can be included in a block casting a specific vote.\n\u003e \n\u003e We can simplify Garzik's vote to say that one of the nVersion bits\n\u003e either votes for the blocksize to be increased, or decreased, by \n\u003e some fixed ratio (e.g 2x or 1/2x) the next interval. Then we can \n\u003e use a nVersion bit in transactions themselves, also voting for an \n\u003e increase or decrease. Transactions may only be included in blocks \n\u003e with an indentical vote, thus providing miners with a monetary \n\u003e incentive via fees to vote according to user wishes.\n\u003e \n\u003e Of course, to cast a \"don't care\" vote we can either define an \n\u003e additional bit, or sign the transaction with both versions.\n\u003e Equally we can even have different versions with different fees,\n\u003e broadcast via a mechanism such as replace-by-fee.\n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e See also John Dillon's proposal for proof-of-stake blocksize \n\u003e voting:\n\u003e \n\u003e https://www.mail-archive.com/bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net\n/msg02323.html\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e \n- -- 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org \u003chttp://petertodd.org\u003e\n\u003e 0000000000000000127ab1d576dc851f374424f1269c4700ccaba2c42d97e778\n\u003e \n\u003e ----------------------------------------------------------------------\n- --------\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e \n_______________________________________________\n\u003e Bitcoin-development mailing list \n\u003e Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net \n\u003e \u003cmailto:Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net\u003e \n\u003e https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development\n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e ----------------------------------------------------------------------\n- --------\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e Bitcoin-development mailing list\n\u003e Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net \n\u003e https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development\n\u003e \n\n- -- \nhttp://abis.io ~\n\"a protocol concept to enable decentralization\nand expansion of a giving economy, and a new social good\"\nhttps://keybase.io/odinn\n-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----\nVersion: GnuPG v1\n\niQEcBAEBAgAGBQJVfQL0AAoJEGxwq/inSG8CRqMH/0l9tHGA8figVGnIBoMgdpVi\nuwMGTQTjLUf12/NFS27vT+OLMWqZRvVXvlxDF25N7la+QImhh67LqmQy8fkwGg5T\nkJ6MkkFLgy05aqE/X3ywJUifOKmS3Y/RDDUJhrFjjHrsMGoF4ATtVwTpUBLik+kX\nG3XRNlInmyB55UEcpyfBg9kfLz8xiy6sBPeaeGnFLCNWTs5TgJ6DTFqhBAAmE8Hw\nk0tN6mW3wYS610FFkS2E3+W8O8KGs4oqAYLX/ZQOhX9oKjBvWWI4ppRpSDyBNcxd\nA6VAKyU8HCuDHAEwba6gdlUa+yf4qxuZV1KCNENbvtN1CTsJ6oh0OxnEO6dtogo=\n=KZmG\n-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----",
"sig": "3d414a031337dc46f431e4e5b4326b8317cca11fa26600d992376ed81c4e43224d937ec78b9e24e59101e3c4e90076a3e9be652a4837beb9cc55130792905a11"
}