đź“… Original date posted:2015-08-03
đź“ť Original message:What's wrong with a little cooperation to resolve things now and then? Man
is not an island unto himself, we compete with each other and we cooperate
with each other occasionally if it's mutually beneficial.
You said yourself that a lot of money would have been lost if the two hard
forks cited weren't resolved - that's the correct incentives at work again.
On 3 August 2015 at 09:20, Eric Lombrozo <elombrozo at gmail.com> wrote:
> There have already been two notable incidents requiring manual
> intervention and good-faith cooperation between core devs and mining pool
> operators that would have either never gotten resolved alone or would have
> ended up costing a lot of people a lot of money had no action been taken
> (March 2013 and July 2015). They were both caused by consensus disagreement
> that directly or indirectly were brought about by bigger blocks. There is
> *strong* evidence…and a great deal of theory explaining it…that links
> larger blocks with the propensity for consensus forks that require manual
> intervention.
>
> Please, can we stop saying this is merely about decentralization and
> trustlessness? The very model upon which the security of the system is
> based *broke*…as in, we were only able to recover because a few individuals
> deliberately manipulated the consensus rules to fix it manually. Shouldn’t
> we more highly prioritize fixing the issues that can lead to these
> incidents than trying to increase throughput? Increasing block size cannot
> possibly make these forking tendencies better…but it very well could make
> them worse.
>
> - Eric
>
> On Aug 3, 2015, at 1:06 AM, Hector Chu via bitcoin-dev <
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> On 3 August 2015 at 08:53, Adam Back <adam at cypherspace.org> wrote:
>
>> Again this should not be a political or business compromise model - we
>> must focus on scientific evaluation, technical requirements and
>> security.
>>
>
> I will assert that the block size is political because it affects nearly
> all users to some degree and not all those users are technically inclined
> or care to keep decentralisation in the current configuration as you do.
> This debate has forgotten the current and future users of Bitcoin. Most of
> them think the hit to node count in the short term preferable to making it
> expensive and competitive to transact.
>
> We all need a little faith that the system will reorganise and readjust
> after the move to big blocks in a way that still has a reasonable degree of
> decentralisation and trustlessness. The incentives of Bitcoin remain, so
> everyone's decentralised decision throughout the system, from miners,
> merchants and users, will continue to act according to those incentives.
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150803/47306e83/attachment.html>;
Hector Chu [ARCHIVE] /
npub170…jr45x
2023-06-07 15:44:39
in reply to nevent1q…dnxe
Author Public Key
npub170s9de2ganthnna75443h70tnsn2lvmcq5365r0juk8nfa93lthqwjr45xPublished at
2023-06-07 15:44:39Event JSON
{
"id": "2ce79a545e0bc235f38e7b37b41bf40e30c73671b1bec12c286026065cfab25e",
"pubkey": "f3e056e548ecd779cfbea56b1bf9eb9c26afb3780523aa0df2e58f34f4b1faee",
"created_at": 1686152679,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"a0c03a06bdcdda80df7b16913d2127509eac9b2435ee23077a88c0b0dffee3c6",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"221ce847b4021e43a588c1370ebb4a84088bdcb194ffd9d47e30eea91dc27246",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"e899768d254f3537af7e26455968583632d0ab0bd4c780445eacfa087ac80d8f"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-08-03\n📝 Original message:What's wrong with a little cooperation to resolve things now and then? Man\nis not an island unto himself, we compete with each other and we cooperate\nwith each other occasionally if it's mutually beneficial.\n\nYou said yourself that a lot of money would have been lost if the two hard\nforks cited weren't resolved - that's the correct incentives at work again.\n\nOn 3 August 2015 at 09:20, Eric Lombrozo \u003celombrozo at gmail.com\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e There have already been two notable incidents requiring manual\n\u003e intervention and good-faith cooperation between core devs and mining pool\n\u003e operators that would have either never gotten resolved alone or would have\n\u003e ended up costing a lot of people a lot of money had no action been taken\n\u003e (March 2013 and July 2015). They were both caused by consensus disagreement\n\u003e that directly or indirectly were brought about by bigger blocks. There is\n\u003e *strong* evidence…and a great deal of theory explaining it…that links\n\u003e larger blocks with the propensity for consensus forks that require manual\n\u003e intervention.\n\u003e\n\u003e Please, can we stop saying this is merely about decentralization and\n\u003e trustlessness? The very model upon which the security of the system is\n\u003e based *broke*…as in, we were only able to recover because a few individuals\n\u003e deliberately manipulated the consensus rules to fix it manually. Shouldn’t\n\u003e we more highly prioritize fixing the issues that can lead to these\n\u003e incidents than trying to increase throughput? Increasing block size cannot\n\u003e possibly make these forking tendencies better…but it very well could make\n\u003e them worse.\n\u003e\n\u003e - Eric\n\u003e\n\u003e On Aug 3, 2015, at 1:06 AM, Hector Chu via bitcoin-dev \u003c\n\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\n\u003e On 3 August 2015 at 08:53, Adam Back \u003cadam at cypherspace.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\n\u003e\u003e Again this should not be a political or business compromise model - we\n\u003e\u003e must focus on scientific evaluation, technical requirements and\n\u003e\u003e security.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e I will assert that the block size is political because it affects nearly\n\u003e all users to some degree and not all those users are technically inclined\n\u003e or care to keep decentralisation in the current configuration as you do.\n\u003e This debate has forgotten the current and future users of Bitcoin. Most of\n\u003e them think the hit to node count in the short term preferable to making it\n\u003e expensive and competitive to transact.\n\u003e\n\u003e We all need a little faith that the system will reorganise and readjust\n\u003e after the move to big blocks in a way that still has a reasonable degree of\n\u003e decentralisation and trustlessness. The incentives of Bitcoin remain, so\n\u003e everyone's decentralised decision throughout the system, from miners,\n\u003e merchants and users, will continue to act according to those incentives.\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/20150803/47306e83/attachment.html\u003e",
"sig": "8c0cf44ef6b6a5c730132eb2834eda4838bfa75e00bccaa23a3b325e3eadb3ad04a1173588d84d835f72fb465819c74228bd33fcc188d18c0428ebd112ffeda5"
}