<HTML><HEAD></HEAD>
<BODY dir=ltr>
<DIV dir=ltr>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial'; COLOR: #000000">
<DIV>Regarding Tier’s proposal: The lower security you mention for extended
blocks would delay, possibly forever, the larger blocks maximum block size that
we want for the entire network. That doesn’t sound like an optimal
solution.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Regarding consensus for larger maximum block size, what we are seeing on
this list is typical of what we see in the U.S. Congress. Support for
changes by the stakeholders (support for bills by the citizens as a whole) has
become irrelevant to the probability of these changes being adopted.
Lobbyists have all the sway in getting their policies enacted. In our
case, I would bet on some lobbying of core developers by wealthy miners.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Someone recently proposed that secret ballots could help eliminate the
power of lobbyists in Congress. Nobody invests in that which cannot be
confirmed. Secret ballots mean the vote you are buying cannot be
confirmed. Perhaps this will work for Bitcoin Core as well.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV
style='FONT-SIZE: small; TEXT-DECORATION: none; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri"; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; COLOR: #000000; FONT-STYLE: normal; DISPLAY: inline'>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt tahoma">
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV style="BACKGROUND: #f5f5f5">
<DIV style="font-color: black"><B>From:</B> <A title=tier.nolan@gmail.com
href="mailto:tier.nolan@gmail.com">Tier Nolan</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Sent:</B> Friday, May 29, 2015 7:22 AM</DIV>
<DIV><B>Cc:</B> <A title=bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
href="mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net">Bitcoin Dev</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proposed alternatives to the 20MB
stepfunction</DIV></DIV></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></DIV>
<DIV
style='FONT-SIZE: small; TEXT-DECORATION: none; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri"; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; COLOR: #000000; FONT-STYLE: normal; DISPLAY: inline'>
<DIV dir=ltr>
<DIV class=gmail_extra>
<DIV class=gmail_quote>On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 3:09 PM, Tier Nolan <SPAN
dir=ltr><<A href="mailto:tier.nolan@gmail.com"
target=_blank>tier.nolan@gmail.com</A>></SPAN> wrote:<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=gmail_quote
style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">
<DIV dir=ltr>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV class=gmail_extra>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV class=gmail_quote><SPAN>On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 1:39 PM, Gavin Andresen
<SPAN dir=ltr><<A href="mailto:gavinandresen@gmail.com"
target=_blank>gavinandresen@gmail.com</A>></SPAN> wrote:<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=gmail_quote
style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">
<DIV dir=ltr>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV>But if there is still no consensus among developers but the "bigger
blocks now" movement is successful, I'll ask for help getting big miners to
do the same, and use the soft-fork block version voting mechanism to
(hopefully) get a majority and then a super-majority willing to produce
bigger blocks. The purpose of that process is to prove to any doubters that
they'd better start supporting bigger blocks or they'll be left behind, and
to give them a chance to upgrade before that happens.</DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV> </DIV></SPAN>
<DIV>How do you define that the movement is
successful?<BR></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Sorry again, I keep auto-sending from gmail when trying to
delete.<BR><BR></DIV>
<DIV>In theory, using the "nuclear option", the block size can be increased via
soft fork.<BR></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV>Version 4 blocks would contain the hash of the a valid extended block in
the coinbase.<BR><BR></DIV>
<DIV><block height> <32 byte extended hash><BR></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>To send coins to the auxiliary block, you send them to some
template.<BR><BR></DIV>
<DIV>OP_P2SH_EXTENDED <scriptPubKey hash> OP_TRUE<BR><BR></DIV>
<DIV>This transaction can be spent by anyone (under the current rules).
The soft fork would lock the transaction output unless it transferred money from
the extended block.<BR><BR></DIV>
<DIV>To unlock the transaction output, you need to include the txid of
transaction(s) in the extended block and signature(s) in the
scriptSig.<BR><BR></DIV>
<DIV>The transaction output can be spent in the extended block using P2SH
against the scriptPubKey hash.<BR></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>This means that people can choose to move their money to the extended
block. It might have lower security than leaving it in the root
chain.<BR><BR></DIV>
<DIV>The extended chain could use the updated script language too.<BR><BR></DIV>
<DIV>This is obviously more complex than just increasing the size though, but it
could be a fallback option if no consensus is reached. It has the
advantage of giving people a choice. They can move their money to the
extended chain or not, as they wish.<BR></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV>
<P>
<HR>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------<BR>
<P>
<HR>
_______________________________________________<BR>Bitcoin-development mailing
list<BR>Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net<BR>https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development<BR></DIV></DIV></DIV></BODY></HTML>