Re: [bitcoin-dev] A compromise between BIP101 and Pieter's proposal

2015-08-02 Thread Dave Scotese via bitcoin-dev
It will help to assume that there is at least one group of evil people who are investing in Bitcon's demise. Not because there are, but because there might be. So let's assume they are making a set of a billion transactions, or a trillion, and maintaining currently-being-legitimately-used hashing

Re: [bitcoin-dev] A compromise between BIP101 and Pieter's proposal

2015-08-02 Thread Venzen Khaosan via bitcoin-dev
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 +1 on every point, sipa On 08/02/2015 05:32 PM, Pieter Wuille via bitcoin-dev wrote: 2. Starting date: 30 days after 75% miner support, but not before 2016-01-12 00:00 UTC Rationale: A 30-day grace period is given to make sure >>>

Re: [bitcoin-dev] A compromise between BIP101 and Pieter's proposal

2015-08-02 Thread Pieter Wuille via bitcoin-dev
>>> 2. Starting date: 30 days after 75% miner support, but not before >>> 2016-01-12 00:00 UTC >>> >>> Rationale: A 30-day grace period is given to make sure everyone has >>> enough time to follow. This is a compromise between 14 day in BIP101 >>> and 1 year in BIP103. I tend to agree with BIP101.

Re: [bitcoin-dev] A compromise between BIP101 and Pieter's proposal

2015-08-02 Thread odinn via bitcoin-dev
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 I am in favor of a more gradual (longer) period and a softforking solution... that is, more than 30 days of grace period (some period between 60 days and a year), ... ... and given the number of valid softforking proposals out there it seems to me tha

Re: [bitcoin-dev] A compromise between BIP101 and Pieter's proposal

2015-08-02 Thread jl2012 via bitcoin-dev
Pieter Wuille 於 2015-08-01 16:45 寫到: On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 10:39 AM, jl2012 via bitcoin-dev wrote: 2. Starting date: 30 days after 75% miner support, but not before 2016-01-12 00:00 UTC Rationale: A 30-day grace period is given to make sure everyone has enough time to follow. This is a com

Re: [bitcoin-dev] A compromise between BIP101 and Pieter's proposal

2015-08-01 Thread Tom Harding via bitcoin-dev
On 8/1/2015 1:45 PM, Pieter Wuille via bitcoin-dev wrote: > > Regarding "reasonable", I have a theory. What if we would have had 8 > MB blocks from the start? My guess is that some more people would have > decided to run their high-transaction-rate use cases on chain, that > we'd regularly see 4-6

Re: [bitcoin-dev] A compromise between BIP101 and Pieter's proposal

2015-08-01 Thread Pieter Wuille via bitcoin-dev
On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 10:39 AM, jl2012 via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > There is a summary of the proposals in my previous mail at > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-July/009808.html > 1. Initiation: BIP34 style voting, with support of

Re: [bitcoin-dev] A compromise between BIP101 and Pieter's proposal

2015-07-31 Thread G. Andrew Stone via bitcoin-dev
There's a large array of solutions that are bigger than the cheapest home broadband, but smaller then renting hardware in a data center. Every company with internet service to their location purchases one of these options. If Bitcoin full node bandwidth requirements ever exceed a hobbyist's reach

Re: [bitcoin-dev] A compromise between BIP101 and Pieter's proposal

2015-07-31 Thread Dave Scotese via bitcoin-dev
Here are some books that will help more people understand why Adam's concern is important: Kicking the Dragon (by Larken Rose) The State (by Franz Oppenheimer) Like he said, it isn't much about bitcoin. Our crypto is just one of the defenses we've created, and understanding what it defends will h

Re: [bitcoin-dev] A compromise between BIP101 and Pieter's proposal

2015-07-31 Thread Adam Back via bitcoin-dev
That's all well and fine. But the pattern of your argument I would say is "arguing security down" ie saying something is not secure anyway, nothing is secure, everything could be hacked, so lets forget that and give up, so that what is left is basically no decentralisation security. It is not par

Re: [bitcoin-dev] A compromise between BIP101 and Pieter's proposal

2015-07-31 Thread Ivan Brightly via bitcoin-dev
1. Data centers are not some uniform group of businesses with identical policies nor firms with identical laws applied. The ability to get a search warrant at a Swedish hosting provider will be dramatically different than a Singaporean business. Similar to the decentralized nature of bi

Re: [bitcoin-dev] A compromise between BIP101 and Pieter's proposal

2015-07-31 Thread jl2012 via bitcoin-dev
Yes, data-center operators are bound to follow laws, including NSLs and gag orders. How about your ISP? Is it bound to follow laws, including NSLs and gag orders? https://edri.org/irish_isp_introduces_blocking/ Do you think everyone should run a full node behind TOR? No way, your repressive

Re: [bitcoin-dev] A compromise between BIP101 and Pieter's proposal

2015-07-31 Thread Adam Back via bitcoin-dev
I think trust the data-center logic obviously fails, and I was talking about this scenario in the post you are replying to. You are trusting the data-center operator period. If one could trust data-centers to run verified code, to not get hacked, filter traffic, respond to court orders without no

[bitcoin-dev] A compromise between BIP101 and Pieter's proposal

2015-07-31 Thread jl2012 via bitcoin-dev
There is a summary of the proposals in my previous mail at https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-July/009808.html I think there could be a compromise between Gavin's BIP101 and Pieter's proposal (called "BIP103" here). Below I'm trying to play with the parameters, whi