On 9/21/2015 1:04 AM, Corey Haddad via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> If it turns out that the blocksize divide is hinging on differing
> developer views on the nature of the threat posed by governments,
> perhaps it would be better to defer to people who specialize in that
> area. ...
...
> The main idea
>Bitcoin does not enjoy nearly the popularity that marijuana and guns do,
Marijuana is an individual activity. Precisely the problem with Bitcoin you
envision, where each one of us could be easily jailed.
Guns are quite different: they have NRA and judging by how successful it is at
fending
>
> Also, in the US, despite overwhelming resistance on a broad scale,
> legislation continues to be presented which would violate the 2nd amendment
> right to keep and bear arms.
And yet the proposed legislation goes nowhere, and the USA continues to
stand alone in having the first world's
>Does this conversation have to happen on-list? It seems to have wandered
>incredibly far off-topic.
How is this off-topic? This a fundamental decision, from which all the other
development decisions follow.
And apparently it's far from settled, with one part pulling in the direction of
Replying to this specific email only because it is the most recent in my
mail client.
Does this conversation have to happen on-list? It seems to have wandered
incredibly far off-topic.
On Sun, Sep 20, 2015 at 5:25 AM, Mike Hearn via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
Your reply has nothing to do with my comment. It looks like you just go
around posting wing nut stuff without regard to what is being discussed.
A proper threat model considers all possible threats and looks at the
probability of each.
Obviously from your comment you have no experience in
>Anyone who doesn't consider governments the proper threat model is either a
>shill or an idiot.
You meant to say "threat". This is what threat model is:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threat_model
Nobody here discounts governments as a threat.
As to the "proper threat model", you can't
Threat models can be developed for things like threats from governments.
The idea in developing a model is to put in the context of other
possible threats. For example, someone with a few million to burn can
easily crash the exchange rate or buy a couple core developers much
easier and
Larger user base won't necessarily protect against governments if we
still have chokepoints they can go after.
Bitcoin will always have chokepoints governments can go after. Hackers
already targeted routers to divert mining traffic awhile back. Bitcoin
traffic is easily seen and blocked by
That's a simple fallacy, historically governments even hegemons, fail, in
fact it would be odd to assert that a government will not fail, therefore
ascribing godlike and limitless powers to a government is again the view of
either a shill or someone untutored in history.
On Sun, Sep 20, 2015 at
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Nobody said anything about trusting the governments in the way such as
you describe.
No matter how much you want to disagree here, Mike Hearn is right on
some aspects. He only said that bitcoin needs to have larger user
base, more use cases, making
therefore ascribing godlike and limitless powers to a government is
again the view of either a shill or someone untutored in history.
Since nobody ever ascribed "godlike and limitless powers to a
government" on this list your comment has no bearing on anything
discussed here. I am sure the
-- Original Message --
From: "s7r via bitcoin-dev" <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Sent: 9/20/2015 2:33:38 PM
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Scaling Bitcoin conference micro-report
The general threat model for which
-- Original Message --
From: "Milly Bitcoin via bitcoin-dev"
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Sent: 9/20/2015 3:02:32 PM
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Scaling Bitcoin conference micro-report
Larger user base won't nec
It's amazing how foolish some people are to continue trusting governments
especially in light of recent history: a seemingly endless, Orwellian 'war
on terror', multiple regional conflicts often justified by fake evidence,
wholesale disregard of law and basic human covenants such as do not
>
> Let me get this straight. You start this whole debate with a "kick the can
> down the road" proposal to increase the block size to 20MB, which obviously
> would require another hard fork in the future, but if someone else proposes
> a similar "kicka the can" proposal you will outright reject
phm got most of this, but...
On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 2:53 PM, phm via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> Mike Hearn via bitcoin-dev wrote:
>
> >
> > * Most governments can easily spend enough money to do a 51% attack,
> > especially if they can compel chip fabs
>
> Your argument is that the state is not a threat to a system designed to
> deprive the state of seigniorage, because the state will see that system
> as too important?
>
And so we get to one of the hearts of the debate.
The axiom upon which you and NxtChg disagree is this: he/she believes
>While to many of us that sounds crazy, if you're threat model assumes
>Bitcoin is a legal/regulated service provided by a highly trusted mining
>community it's a reasonable design.
There is a large, grey area all the way to "legal/regulated service provided by
a highly trusted mining
>Your vision of censorship resistance is to become such a strong
>central authority that you can resist it in direct physical confrontation.
>If you succeed at this, you are the threat.
My vision is a strong _decentralized_ system, which is:
a) too important to close,
b) able to provide
On 09/18/2015 11:06 PM, NxtChg via bitcoin-dev wrote:
>> While to many of us that sounds crazy, if you're threat model assumes
>> Bitcoin is a legal/regulated service provided by a highly trusted
>> mining community it's a reasonable design.
>
> There is a large, grey area all the way to
On 09/19/2015 12:57 AM, NxtChg wrote:>
>> Your vision of censorship resistance is to become such a strong
>> central authority that you can resist it in direct physical
>> confrontation. If you succeed at this, you are the threat.
>
> My vision is a strong _decentralized_ system, which is:
>
>
>Your argument is that the state is not a threat to a system
>designed to deprive the state of seigniorage, because the state will see that
>system as too important?
Well, if you look at governments from the point of youtube illuminati videos,
then, yeah, I guess my position would seem a bit
, September 18, 2015 at 10:33 PM
From: "Mike Hearn via bitcoin-dev" <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
To: "Matt Corallo" <lf-li...@mattcorallo.com>
Cc: "Bitcoin development mailing list" <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re
On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 08:06:23PM +, Matt Corallo via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> I did not intend to imply that there was agreement on a desire to
> schedule a second hardfork. My wording may have been a bit too loose.
> Instead, I believe there was much agreement that doing a short-term
> hardfork
Any change that results in this happening all over again in a few years
does not have consensus.
___
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
I did not intend to imply that there was agreement on a desire to
schedule a second hardfork. My wording may have been a bit too loose.
Instead, I believe there was much agreement that doing a short-term
hardfork now, with many agreeing that a second would hopefully be
entirely
"But if a metric were chosen that addressed my concerns (worst case
propagation and validation time), then I could be in favor of an initial
bump that allowed a larger number of typical transactions in a block."
+1. A ratio is much more valuable than a simple metric. It seems clearly
difficult
Correction of a correction, in-line:
On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 5:51 PM, Matt Corallo via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > - Many interested or at least willing to accept a "short term bump", a
> > hard fork to modify block size limit regime to be cost-based via
> >
I only have one "correction", included inline.
On 09/16/15 21:32, Jeff Garzik via bitcoin-dev wrote:
>
> During Scaling Bitcoin, Bitcoin Core committers and notable contributors
> got together and chatted about where a "greatest common denominator"
> type consensus might be. The following is a
30 matches
Mail list logo
