rich1.0npub1m230cem2yh3mtdzkg32qhj73uytgkyg5ylxsu083n3tpjnajxx4qqa2np2https://nostr.ae/npub1m230cem2yh3mtdzkg32qhj73uytgkyg5ylxsu083n3tpjnajxx4qqa2np2njumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2015-08-21 📝 Original message:-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 On 20 August 2015 21:45:23 GMT-07:00, Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: >I think this is a bit well, sad, at the moment-- a basic principle in >sound decision making is that one should try to withhold judgement >until after the analysis and options are laid out to avoid prematurely >laying down "battle lines" which then they're socially and politically >committed to a particular answer. > > >There are several other BIPs in the works right now that aren't out >there yet, as well (as presumably) new insight from the workshop. It >would be a shame if these things would be for naught because of being >decided prematurely. I'll second that, which is why I've mostly not commented on whether or not particular proposals are good ideas, except in the case where they're obviously broken due to reasons other than the blocksize itself. For instance both of Garzik's proposals and Andresen's BIP101 have serious flaws regardless of your thoughts on the blocksize, which is why I've commented on them. Wuille's OTOH is implemented well, which is why I have not commented about it. What might be valuable is to ask devs to explain what their threat models are, what should be at the root of their thinking about the blocksize. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQE9BAEBCgAnIBxQZXRlciBUb2RkIDxwZXRlQHBldGVydG9kZC5vcmc+BQJV1u9o AAoJEMCF8hzn9Lncz4MH/0ZvaS+XK4+kVsgvdO0Mx8Axi8lesQoOSNafY1O8F4Tx QQcIWYk+QgST0wBOooqIkivlWUhXUUc0A22VvYJ2gOt+KCWCscXkOnPrHWMA2f80 4KBEbLyFd+eaKQnCXoWX6SlDiYrNhyIySwAAvZyJ6IxTliUljuuk4Cc+K7pnVKu2 tfaRXtoal3IzyVb/rxUafgRoCaR2QdkYfr+xwkeF9AjqYFUKL+p5zENV97cbLsiF /Rxtpe0A9RSClc+VX0yyjFAIIUfmFDWdC7+wNv8YBvHssE0lndPByxWTNVHnHmCk 44XfrsSL0LAqPIqcxyK0hnUSUgKPo0c2chd9mlXHpYE= =eHHo -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----