[bitcoin-dev] Why Satoshi's temporary anti-spam measure isn't temporary
milly at bitcoins.info
Fri Jul 31 00:15:19 UTC 2015
These are the types of things I have been discussing in relation to a
-A list of metrics
-A Risk analysis of the baseline system. Bitcoin as it is now.
-Mitigation strategies for each risk.
-A set of goals.
-A Road map for each goal that lists the changes or possible avenues to
achieve that goal.
Proposed changes would be measured against the same metrics and a risk
analysis done so it can be compared with the baseline.
For example, the block size debate would be discussed in the context of
a road map related to a goal of increase scaling. One of the metrics
would be a decentralization metric. (A framework for a decentralization
metric is at
Cost would be one aspect of the decentralization metric.
On 7/30/2015 7:33 PM, Eric Lombrozo via bitcoin-dev wrote:
>> On Jul 30, 2015, at 5:29 AM, Gavin <gavinandresen at gmail.com
>> <mailto:gavinandresen at gmail.com>> wrote:
>> it is hard to have a rational conversation about that when even simple
>> questions like 'what is s reasonable cost to run a full node' are met
>> with silence.
> Some of the risks are pretty hard to quantify. But I think this misses
> the bigger point - it very well *might* be possible to safely raise this
> limit or even get rid of it by first fixing some serious issues with the
> protocol. But over six years into the project and these issues continue
> to be all-but-ignored by most of the community (including at least a few
> core developers). I don’t think it’s really a matter of whether we agree
> on whether it’s good to raise the block size limit, Gavin. I think it’s
> a matter of a difference in priorities.
> - Eric
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
More information about the bitcoin-dev