<unnamed>

Public Key

npub18nln9r4lzug8hzsmegqwsl9040ckpqquyz73v4du495xmmepwf0qaltg35

Profile Code

nprofile1qqsrelej36l3wyrm3gdu5q8g0jh6hutqsqwzp0gk2k72j6rdaushyhsprpmhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuumwdae8gtnnda3kjctvczljdy

Publishing to

relay.snort.social

Last Notes

2023-06-07 17:37:33 CEST

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2015-06-14
📝 Original message:Jeff,
with all due respect, but I've seen you saying this a few times
now, that this decision is oh so difficult and important.
But this is not helpful. We all know that. Even I.
Make a suggestion, or stay out of the debate!
Mats
On 06/14/2015 07:36 AM, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> The choice is very real and on-point. What should the block size limit
> be? Why?
>
> There is a large consensus that it needs increasing. To what? By what
> factor?
>
> The size limit literally defines the fee market, the whole damn thing. If
> software high priests choose a size limit of 300k, space is scarce, fees
> are bid high. If software high priests choose a size limit of 32mb, space
> is plentiful, fees are near zero. Market actors take their signals
> accordingly. Some business models boom, some business models fail, as a
> direct result of changing this unintentionally-added speedbump. Different
> users value adoption, decentralization etc. differently.
>
> The size limit is an economic policy lever that needs to be transitioned
> -away- from software and software developers, to the free market.
>
> A simple, e.g. hard fork to 2MB or 4MB does not fix higher level governance
> problems associated with actors lobbying developers, even if a cloistered
> and vetted Technical Advisory Board as has been proposed.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 1:20 AM, Eric Lombrozo <elombrozo at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I definitely think we need some voting system for metaconsensus…but if
>> we’re going to seriously consider this we should look at the problem much
>> more generally. Using false choices doesn’t really help, though ;)
>>
>> - Eric Lombrozo
>>
>>
>> On Jun 13, 2015, at 10:13 PM, Jeff Garzik <jgarzik at bitpay.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 1:08 AM, Eric Lombrozo <elombrozo at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> 2) BIP100 has direct economic consequences…and particularly for miners.
>>> It lends itself to much greater corruptibility.
>>>
>>>
>> What is the alternative? Have a Chief Scientist or Technical Advisory
>> Board choose what is a proper fee, what is a proper level of
>> decentralization, a proper growth factor?
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>