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>;
Eric Lombrozo [ARCHIVE] /
npub1az…t2krq
2023-06-07 15:37:36
in reply to nevent1q…7dyf
Author Public Key
npub1azvhdrf9fu6n0tm7yez4j6zcxcedp2ct6nrcq3z74naqs7kgpk8s5t2krqSeen on
wss://relay.noswhere.comPublished at
2023-06-07 15:37:36Event JSON
{
"id": "e990fdd80082e070d45cae8bb4759717407cfaabd4a3f0e9f96befa4f08b5916",
"pubkey": "e899768d254f3537af7e26455968583632d0ab0bd4c780445eacfa087ac80d8f",
"created_at": 1686152256,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"8a807127e1ae5b585bcc8f3578413a7d3eb1bd30e75c19cd4a3a0a256adcb61c",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"6f0f04c627b32342f3a520ea92082fdab8be90ed9e85cc7f6796ed97f7de0a8e",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"f2c95df3766562e3b96b79a0254881c59e8639f23987846961cf55412a77f6f2"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-06-15\n📝 Original message:\u003e On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 1:08 AM, Eric Lombrozo \u003celombrozo at gmail.com \u003cmailto:elombrozo at gmail.com\u003e\u003e wrote:\n\u003e 2) BIP100 has direct economic consequences…and particularly for miners. It lends itself to much greater corruptibility.\n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e 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?\n\n\n\u003e On Jun 13, 2015, at 10:36 PM, Jeff Garzik \u003cjgarzik at bitpay.com\u003e wrote:\n\u003e \n\u003e The choice is very real and on-point. What should the block size limit be? Why?\n\u003e \n\u003e There is a large consensus that it needs increasing. To what? By what factor?\n\nTo 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...\n\nWhat 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…\n\n- Eric Lombrozo\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150614/012fa37c/attachment.html\u003e\n-------------- next part --------------\nA non-text attachment was scrubbed...\nName: signature.asc\nType: application/pgp-signature\nSize: 842 bytes\nDesc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150614/012fa37c/attachment.sig\u003e",
"sig": "0232f2ce7ab0be6cdd3ba807079f61f337e70cc8b6389fe00247844b1619c0ad4fb78009d6daa953c6c5bf2d8404dfaa92a68cb1d998de0b87f5e960ba83c793"
}