Re: [Bitcoin-development] Meta suggestions for this block size debate
Just pushed the template for Arguments 3, 4, 6, and a full Argument 2. Argument 5 should be pro, but is currently not defined. Argument 6 may be merged with Argument 4 if you think that's necessary. On Sat, Jun 6, 2015 at 2:41 AM, gabe appleton wrote: > Nothing to apologize for. And yes, that's the correct one. > On Jun 6, 2015 2:39 AM, "Pindar Wong" wrote: > >> OK... sorry for my confusion. >> >> https://github.com/EthanHeilman/BlockSizeDebate >> >> it is. >> >> p. >> >> >> On Sat, Jun 6, 2015 at 2:37 PM, gabe appleton >> wrote: >> >>> Please use the one it's originally forked from that Ethan made. I don't >>> want to be the one who sorts through what's valid and what isn't, as I >>> don't have as low-level an understanding as I'd like. I don't feel >>> qualified. >>> On Jun 6, 2015 2:34 AM, "Pindar Wong" wrote: >>> Thanks Gabe. https://github.com/gappleto97/BlockSizeDebate github's reachable via vpn. p. On Sat, Jun 6, 2015 at 2:28 PM, gabe appleton wrote: > Yeah. We made a git repo instead, so we don't have to bother with the > exclusive-by-default wiki policies. It's linked in this email chain. > > I'll be getting home tomorrow, so I should be able to start back up on > this. A few days from now we should throw this on /r/Bitcoin so we can get > some more public comment on it. They already gave me a few leads to chase. > On Jun 5, 2015 11:34 PM, "Pindar Wong" wrote: > >> Gabe, >> >> Did you ever get an answer to this? >> >> I"ll have some time tomorrow to be able to help with some work on >> this and will need to do it myself anyways since I'm not sure I >> understand >> the nuances, where bitcoin XT fits into the scheme of things (or not) >> etc. >> >> I would have thought that there would be a testnet4 by now using 8mb >> blocks... but hey that's just me. >> >> p. >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 11:52 AM, gabe appleton >> wrote: >> >>> I don't have permission to create a page. If someone else does, I'll >>> happily get a framework started. >>> >>> On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 11:32 PM, Ethan Heilman >>> wrote: >>> I second this, I don't have time to read the large number of emails generated every day from the block size debate. A summary of the various positions and arguments would be extremely helpful. On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 11:02 PM, gabe appleton < [email protected]> wrote: > Also, can we try to get a wiki page for the debate? That way we > could condense the information as much as possible. I'll be willing to > assist if the page gets approval. > On Jun 1, 2015 6:41 PM, "Mats Henricson" > wrote: > >> Hi! >> >> My fingers have been itching many times now, this debate >> drives me nuts. >> >> I just wish all posters could follow two simple principles: >> >> 1. Read up. Yes. All of what has been written. Yes, it will >>take many hours. But if you're rehashing what other >>smarter people have said over and over before, you're >>wasting hundreds of peoples time. Please don't. >> >> 2. Be helpful. Suggest alternatives. Just cristizising is >>just destructive. If you want no change, then say so. >> >> Mats >> >> >> -- >> ___ >> Bitcoin-development mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development >> > > > -- > > ___ > Bitcoin-development mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development > > >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> ___ >>> Bitcoin-development mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development >>> >>> >> >> -- ___ Bitcoin-development mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
Re: [Bitcoin-development] Meta suggestions for this block size debate
Nothing to apologize for. And yes, that's the correct one. On Jun 6, 2015 2:39 AM, "Pindar Wong" wrote: > OK... sorry for my confusion. > > https://github.com/EthanHeilman/BlockSizeDebate > > it is. > > p. > > > On Sat, Jun 6, 2015 at 2:37 PM, gabe appleton > wrote: > >> Please use the one it's originally forked from that Ethan made. I don't >> want to be the one who sorts through what's valid and what isn't, as I >> don't have as low-level an understanding as I'd like. I don't feel >> qualified. >> On Jun 6, 2015 2:34 AM, "Pindar Wong" wrote: >> >>> Thanks Gabe. >>> >>> https://github.com/gappleto97/BlockSizeDebate >>> >>> github's reachable via vpn. >>> >>> p. >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Jun 6, 2015 at 2:28 PM, gabe appleton >>> wrote: >>> Yeah. We made a git repo instead, so we don't have to bother with the exclusive-by-default wiki policies. It's linked in this email chain. I'll be getting home tomorrow, so I should be able to start back up on this. A few days from now we should throw this on /r/Bitcoin so we can get some more public comment on it. They already gave me a few leads to chase. On Jun 5, 2015 11:34 PM, "Pindar Wong" wrote: > Gabe, > > Did you ever get an answer to this? > > I"ll have some time tomorrow to be able to help with some work on this > and will need to do it myself anyways since I'm not sure I understand the > nuances, where bitcoin XT fits into the scheme of things (or not) etc. > > I would have thought that there would be a testnet4 by now using 8mb > blocks... but hey that's just me. > > p. > > > > > On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 11:52 AM, gabe appleton > wrote: > >> I don't have permission to create a page. If someone else does, I'll >> happily get a framework started. >> >> On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 11:32 PM, Ethan Heilman >> wrote: >> >>> I second this, I don't have time to read the large number of emails >>> generated every day from the block size debate. A summary of the various >>> positions and arguments would be extremely helpful. >>> >>> On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 11:02 PM, gabe appleton >> > wrote: >>> Also, can we try to get a wiki page for the debate? That way we could condense the information as much as possible. I'll be willing to assist if the page gets approval. On Jun 1, 2015 6:41 PM, "Mats Henricson" wrote: > Hi! > > My fingers have been itching many times now, this debate > drives me nuts. > > I just wish all posters could follow two simple principles: > > 1. Read up. Yes. All of what has been written. Yes, it will >take many hours. But if you're rehashing what other >smarter people have said over and over before, you're >wasting hundreds of peoples time. Please don't. > > 2. Be helpful. Suggest alternatives. Just cristizising is >just destructive. If you want no change, then say so. > > Mats > > > -- > ___ > Bitcoin-development mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development > -- ___ Bitcoin-development mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development >>> >> >> >> -- >> >> ___ >> Bitcoin-development mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development >> >> > >>> > -- ___ Bitcoin-development mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
Re: [Bitcoin-development] Meta suggestions for this block size debate
OK... sorry for my confusion. https://github.com/EthanHeilman/BlockSizeDebate it is. p. On Sat, Jun 6, 2015 at 2:37 PM, gabe appleton wrote: > Please use the one it's originally forked from that Ethan made. I don't > want to be the one who sorts through what's valid and what isn't, as I > don't have as low-level an understanding as I'd like. I don't feel > qualified. > On Jun 6, 2015 2:34 AM, "Pindar Wong" wrote: > >> Thanks Gabe. >> >> https://github.com/gappleto97/BlockSizeDebate >> >> github's reachable via vpn. >> >> p. >> >> >> On Sat, Jun 6, 2015 at 2:28 PM, gabe appleton >> wrote: >> >>> Yeah. We made a git repo instead, so we don't have to bother with the >>> exclusive-by-default wiki policies. It's linked in this email chain. >>> >>> I'll be getting home tomorrow, so I should be able to start back up on >>> this. A few days from now we should throw this on /r/Bitcoin so we can get >>> some more public comment on it. They already gave me a few leads to chase. >>> On Jun 5, 2015 11:34 PM, "Pindar Wong" wrote: >>> Gabe, Did you ever get an answer to this? I"ll have some time tomorrow to be able to help with some work on this and will need to do it myself anyways since I'm not sure I understand the nuances, where bitcoin XT fits into the scheme of things (or not) etc. I would have thought that there would be a testnet4 by now using 8mb blocks... but hey that's just me. p. On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 11:52 AM, gabe appleton wrote: > I don't have permission to create a page. If someone else does, I'll > happily get a framework started. > > On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 11:32 PM, Ethan Heilman > wrote: > >> I second this, I don't have time to read the large number of emails >> generated every day from the block size debate. A summary of the various >> positions and arguments would be extremely helpful. >> >> On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 11:02 PM, gabe appleton >> wrote: >> >>> Also, can we try to get a wiki page for the debate? That way we >>> could condense the information as much as possible. I'll be willing to >>> assist if the page gets approval. >>> On Jun 1, 2015 6:41 PM, "Mats Henricson" wrote: >>> Hi! My fingers have been itching many times now, this debate drives me nuts. I just wish all posters could follow two simple principles: 1. Read up. Yes. All of what has been written. Yes, it will take many hours. But if you're rehashing what other smarter people have said over and over before, you're wasting hundreds of peoples time. Please don't. 2. Be helpful. Suggest alternatives. Just cristizising is just destructive. If you want no change, then say so. Mats -- ___ Bitcoin-development mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> ___ >>> Bitcoin-development mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development >>> >>> >> > > > -- > > ___ > Bitcoin-development mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development > > >> -- ___ Bitcoin-development mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
Re: [Bitcoin-development] Meta suggestions for this block size debate
Please use the one it's originally forked from that Ethan made. I don't want to be the one who sorts through what's valid and what isn't, as I don't have as low-level an understanding as I'd like. I don't feel qualified. On Jun 6, 2015 2:34 AM, "Pindar Wong" wrote: > Thanks Gabe. > > https://github.com/gappleto97/BlockSizeDebate > > github's reachable via vpn. > > p. > > > On Sat, Jun 6, 2015 at 2:28 PM, gabe appleton > wrote: > >> Yeah. We made a git repo instead, so we don't have to bother with the >> exclusive-by-default wiki policies. It's linked in this email chain. >> >> I'll be getting home tomorrow, so I should be able to start back up on >> this. A few days from now we should throw this on /r/Bitcoin so we can get >> some more public comment on it. They already gave me a few leads to chase. >> On Jun 5, 2015 11:34 PM, "Pindar Wong" wrote: >> >>> Gabe, >>> >>> Did you ever get an answer to this? >>> >>> I"ll have some time tomorrow to be able to help with some work on this >>> and will need to do it myself anyways since I'm not sure I understand the >>> nuances, where bitcoin XT fits into the scheme of things (or not) etc. >>> >>> I would have thought that there would be a testnet4 by now using 8mb >>> blocks... but hey that's just me. >>> >>> p. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 11:52 AM, gabe appleton >>> wrote: >>> I don't have permission to create a page. If someone else does, I'll happily get a framework started. On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 11:32 PM, Ethan Heilman wrote: > I second this, I don't have time to read the large number of emails > generated every day from the block size debate. A summary of the various > positions and arguments would be extremely helpful. > > On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 11:02 PM, gabe appleton > wrote: > >> Also, can we try to get a wiki page for the debate? That way we could >> condense the information as much as possible. I'll be willing to assist >> if >> the page gets approval. >> On Jun 1, 2015 6:41 PM, "Mats Henricson" wrote: >> >>> Hi! >>> >>> My fingers have been itching many times now, this debate >>> drives me nuts. >>> >>> I just wish all posters could follow two simple principles: >>> >>> 1. Read up. Yes. All of what has been written. Yes, it will >>>take many hours. But if you're rehashing what other >>>smarter people have said over and over before, you're >>>wasting hundreds of peoples time. Please don't. >>> >>> 2. Be helpful. Suggest alternatives. Just cristizising is >>>just destructive. If you want no change, then say so. >>> >>> Mats >>> >>> >>> -- >>> ___ >>> Bitcoin-development mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development >>> >> >> >> -- >> >> ___ >> Bitcoin-development mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development >> >> > -- ___ Bitcoin-development mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development >>> > -- ___ Bitcoin-development mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
Re: [Bitcoin-development] Meta suggestions for this block size debate
Thanks Gabe. https://github.com/gappleto97/BlockSizeDebate github's reachable via vpn. p. On Sat, Jun 6, 2015 at 2:28 PM, gabe appleton wrote: > Yeah. We made a git repo instead, so we don't have to bother with the > exclusive-by-default wiki policies. It's linked in this email chain. > > I'll be getting home tomorrow, so I should be able to start back up on > this. A few days from now we should throw this on /r/Bitcoin so we can get > some more public comment on it. They already gave me a few leads to chase. > On Jun 5, 2015 11:34 PM, "Pindar Wong" wrote: > >> Gabe, >> >> Did you ever get an answer to this? >> >> I"ll have some time tomorrow to be able to help with some work on this >> and will need to do it myself anyways since I'm not sure I understand the >> nuances, where bitcoin XT fits into the scheme of things (or not) etc. >> >> I would have thought that there would be a testnet4 by now using 8mb >> blocks... but hey that's just me. >> >> p. >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 11:52 AM, gabe appleton >> wrote: >> >>> I don't have permission to create a page. If someone else does, I'll >>> happily get a framework started. >>> >>> On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 11:32 PM, Ethan Heilman wrote: >>> I second this, I don't have time to read the large number of emails generated every day from the block size debate. A summary of the various positions and arguments would be extremely helpful. On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 11:02 PM, gabe appleton wrote: > Also, can we try to get a wiki page for the debate? That way we could > condense the information as much as possible. I'll be willing to assist if > the page gets approval. > On Jun 1, 2015 6:41 PM, "Mats Henricson" wrote: > >> Hi! >> >> My fingers have been itching many times now, this debate >> drives me nuts. >> >> I just wish all posters could follow two simple principles: >> >> 1. Read up. Yes. All of what has been written. Yes, it will >>take many hours. But if you're rehashing what other >>smarter people have said over and over before, you're >>wasting hundreds of peoples time. Please don't. >> >> 2. Be helpful. Suggest alternatives. Just cristizising is >>just destructive. If you want no change, then say so. >> >> Mats >> >> >> -- >> ___ >> Bitcoin-development mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development >> > > > -- > > ___ > Bitcoin-development mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development > > >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> ___ >>> Bitcoin-development mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development >>> >>> >> -- ___ Bitcoin-development mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
Re: [Bitcoin-development] Meta suggestions for this block size debate
Yeah. We made a git repo instead, so we don't have to bother with the exclusive-by-default wiki policies. It's linked in this email chain. I'll be getting home tomorrow, so I should be able to start back up on this. A few days from now we should throw this on /r/Bitcoin so we can get some more public comment on it. They already gave me a few leads to chase. On Jun 5, 2015 11:34 PM, "Pindar Wong" wrote: > Gabe, > > Did you ever get an answer to this? > > I"ll have some time tomorrow to be able to help with some work on this and > will need to do it myself anyways since I'm not sure I understand the > nuances, where bitcoin XT fits into the scheme of things (or not) etc. > > I would have thought that there would be a testnet4 by now using 8mb > blocks... but hey that's just me. > > p. > > > > > On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 11:52 AM, gabe appleton > wrote: > >> I don't have permission to create a page. If someone else does, I'll >> happily get a framework started. >> >> On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 11:32 PM, Ethan Heilman wrote: >> >>> I second this, I don't have time to read the large number of emails >>> generated every day from the block size debate. A summary of the various >>> positions and arguments would be extremely helpful. >>> >>> On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 11:02 PM, gabe appleton >>> wrote: >>> Also, can we try to get a wiki page for the debate? That way we could condense the information as much as possible. I'll be willing to assist if the page gets approval. On Jun 1, 2015 6:41 PM, "Mats Henricson" wrote: > Hi! > > My fingers have been itching many times now, this debate > drives me nuts. > > I just wish all posters could follow two simple principles: > > 1. Read up. Yes. All of what has been written. Yes, it will >take many hours. But if you're rehashing what other >smarter people have said over and over before, you're >wasting hundreds of peoples time. Please don't. > > 2. Be helpful. Suggest alternatives. Just cristizising is >just destructive. If you want no change, then say so. > > Mats > > > -- > ___ > Bitcoin-development mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development > -- ___ Bitcoin-development mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development >>> >> >> >> -- >> >> ___ >> Bitcoin-development mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development >> >> > -- ___ Bitcoin-development mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
Re: [Bitcoin-development] Meta suggestions for this block size debate
Gabe, Did you ever get an answer to this? I"ll have some time tomorrow to be able to help with some work on this and will need to do it myself anyways since I'm not sure I understand the nuances, where bitcoin XT fits into the scheme of things (or not) etc. I would have thought that there would be a testnet4 by now using 8mb blocks... but hey that's just me. p. On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 11:52 AM, gabe appleton wrote: > I don't have permission to create a page. If someone else does, I'll > happily get a framework started. > > On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 11:32 PM, Ethan Heilman wrote: > >> I second this, I don't have time to read the large number of emails >> generated every day from the block size debate. A summary of the various >> positions and arguments would be extremely helpful. >> >> On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 11:02 PM, gabe appleton >> wrote: >> >>> Also, can we try to get a wiki page for the debate? That way we could >>> condense the information as much as possible. I'll be willing to assist if >>> the page gets approval. >>> On Jun 1, 2015 6:41 PM, "Mats Henricson" wrote: >>> Hi! My fingers have been itching many times now, this debate drives me nuts. I just wish all posters could follow two simple principles: 1. Read up. Yes. All of what has been written. Yes, it will take many hours. But if you're rehashing what other smarter people have said over and over before, you're wasting hundreds of peoples time. Please don't. 2. Be helpful. Suggest alternatives. Just cristizising is just destructive. If you want no change, then say so. Mats -- ___ Bitcoin-development mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> ___ >>> Bitcoin-development mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development >>> >>> >> > > > -- > > ___ > Bitcoin-development mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development > > -- ___ Bitcoin-development mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
Re: [Bitcoin-development] Meta suggestions for this block size debate
I don't have permission to create a page. If someone else does, I'll happily get a framework started. On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 11:32 PM, Ethan Heilman wrote: > I second this, I don't have time to read the large number of emails > generated every day from the block size debate. A summary of the various > positions and arguments would be extremely helpful. > > On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 11:02 PM, gabe appleton > wrote: > >> Also, can we try to get a wiki page for the debate? That way we could >> condense the information as much as possible. I'll be willing to assist if >> the page gets approval. >> On Jun 1, 2015 6:41 PM, "Mats Henricson" wrote: >> >>> Hi! >>> >>> My fingers have been itching many times now, this debate >>> drives me nuts. >>> >>> I just wish all posters could follow two simple principles: >>> >>> 1. Read up. Yes. All of what has been written. Yes, it will >>>take many hours. But if you're rehashing what other >>>smarter people have said over and over before, you're >>>wasting hundreds of peoples time. Please don't. >>> >>> 2. Be helpful. Suggest alternatives. Just cristizising is >>>just destructive. If you want no change, then say so. >>> >>> Mats >>> >>> >>> -- >>> ___ >>> Bitcoin-development mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development >>> >> >> >> -- >> >> ___ >> Bitcoin-development mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development >> >> > -- ___ Bitcoin-development mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
Re: [Bitcoin-development] Meta suggestions for this block size debate
I second this, I don't have time to read the large number of emails generated every day from the block size debate. A summary of the various positions and arguments would be extremely helpful. On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 11:02 PM, gabe appleton wrote: > Also, can we try to get a wiki page for the debate? That way we could > condense the information as much as possible. I'll be willing to assist if > the page gets approval. > On Jun 1, 2015 6:41 PM, "Mats Henricson" wrote: > >> Hi! >> >> My fingers have been itching many times now, this debate >> drives me nuts. >> >> I just wish all posters could follow two simple principles: >> >> 1. Read up. Yes. All of what has been written. Yes, it will >>take many hours. But if you're rehashing what other >>smarter people have said over and over before, you're >>wasting hundreds of peoples time. Please don't. >> >> 2. Be helpful. Suggest alternatives. Just cristizising is >>just destructive. If you want no change, then say so. >> >> Mats >> >> >> -- >> ___ >> Bitcoin-development mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development >> > > > -- > > ___ > Bitcoin-development mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development > > -- ___ Bitcoin-development mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
Re: [Bitcoin-development] Meta suggestions for this block size debate
Also, can we try to get a wiki page for the debate? That way we could condense the information as much as possible. I'll be willing to assist if the page gets approval. On Jun 1, 2015 6:41 PM, "Mats Henricson" wrote: > Hi! > > My fingers have been itching many times now, this debate > drives me nuts. > > I just wish all posters could follow two simple principles: > > 1. Read up. Yes. All of what has been written. Yes, it will >take many hours. But if you're rehashing what other >smarter people have said over and over before, you're >wasting hundreds of peoples time. Please don't. > > 2. Be helpful. Suggest alternatives. Just cristizising is >just destructive. If you want no change, then say so. > > Mats > > > -- > ___ > Bitcoin-development mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development > -- ___ Bitcoin-development mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
