📅 Original date posted:2017-02-08
📝 Original message: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/b9d35e07/attachment-0001.html>;
alp alp [ARCHIVE] /
npub1gy…k2e7m
2023-06-07 17:56:04
in reply to nevent1q…6sxj
Author Public Key
npub1gypeuzg0qxz690sgg2xquge5h237cxxk52hvypknnwh0elmhwz2s7k2e7mSeen on
wss://relay.nostr.bandPublished at
2023-06-07 17:56:04Event JSON
{
"id": "b63719816dd212bcb10b9894e9ae0f2ab5ea05b2c6a906d47e1d1578e55b8c5e",
"pubkey": "41039e090f0185a2be08428c0e2334baa3ec18d6a2aec206d39baefcff777095",
"created_at": 1686160564,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"6eddf1a13d41cd54af30531855ceb7d14eb31ca00a80520a5a643c560fb7dfbd",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"6d19f83d32d3a804b43dc55d2696d4b432b976b0838bb598392c9ddca284dc0f",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"fa69268781de33f116b423cab175d976820851d6b074d0873c920c6983eb4713"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2017-02-08\n📝 Original message:10% is not a tiny minority.\n\nOn Feb 8, 2017 9:51 AM, \"Andrew Johnson\" \u003candrew.johnson83 at gmail.com\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e You're never going to reach 100% agreement, and stifling the network\n\u003e literally forever to please a tiny minority is daft.\n\u003e\n\u003e On Feb 8, 2017 8:52 AM, \"alp alp via bitcoin-dev\" \u003cbitcoin-dev at lists.\n\u003e linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\n\u003e 10% say literally never. That seems like a significant disenfranchisement\n\u003e and lack of consensus.\n\u003e\n\u003e On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 2:25 PM, t. khan via bitcoin-dev \u003c\n\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\n\u003e\u003e On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 2:53 PM, Luke Dashjr \u003cluke at dashjr.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e On Monday, February 06, 2017 6:19:43 PM you wrote:\n\u003e\u003e\u003e \u003e \u003eMy BIP draft didn't make progress because the community opposes any\n\u003e\u003e\u003e block\n\u003e\u003e\u003e \u003e \u003esize increase hardfork ever.\n\u003e\u003e\u003e \u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e \u003e Luke, how do you know the community opposes that? Specifically, how\n\u003e\u003e\u003e did you\n\u003e\u003e\u003e \u003e come to this conclusion?\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e http://www.strawpoll.me/12228388/r\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e That poll shows 63% of votes want a larger than 1 MB block by this\n\u003e\u003e summer. How do you go from that to \"the community opposes any block\n\u003e\u003e increase ever\"? It shows the exact opposite of that.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e \u003e \u003eYour version doesn't address the current block size\n\u003e\u003e\u003e \u003e \u003eissues (ie, the blocks being too large).\n\u003e\u003e\u003e \u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e \u003e Why do you think blocks are \"too large\"? Please cite some evidence.\n\u003e\u003e\u003e I've\n\u003e\u003e\u003e \u003e asked this before and you ignored it, but an answer would be helpful\n\u003e\u003e\u003e to the\n\u003e\u003e\u003e \u003e discussion.\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e Full node count is far below the safe minimum of 85% of economic\n\u003e\u003e\u003e activity.\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e Is this causing a problem now? If so, what?\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e Typically reasons given for people not using full nodes themselves come\n\u003e\u003e\u003e down\n\u003e\u003e\u003e to the high resource requirements caused by the block size.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e The reason people stop running nodes is because there's no incentive to\n\u003e\u003e counteract the resource costs. Attempting to solve this by making blocks\n\u003e\u003e *smaller* is like curing a disease by killing the patient. (Incentivizing\n\u003e\u003e full node operation would fix that problem.)\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e - t.k.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e\u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20170208/b9d35e07/attachment-0001.html\u003e",
"sig": "7b4fc493680a6c3117a7eec196f85e26941abb2b3c796f7fd8d073c01837cbbe1add7a5cfad1aed4800e68e341e80473040b595246f0c0b989a70656f56f0368"
}