{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1kf0ppcjaguxekg24yx6smgxlu73qn0k8lm0t2wrqc0scpl7u3sgsmf3f58","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1kf0ppcjaguxekg24yx6smgxlu73qn0k8lm0t2wrqc0scpl7u3sgsmf3f58","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2015-06-26\n📝 Original message:Failure to plan now for a hard fork increase 6(?) months in the future\nproduces that lumpy, unpredictable market behavior.\n\nThe market has baked in the years-long behavior of low fees.  From the\nmarket PoV, inaction does lead to precisely that, a sudden change over the\nspan of a few months.\n\nAt a higher level, people look at bitcoin and see people delaying, waiting,\ndawdling until the barn is actually on fire before taking action to put out\nthe fire.\n\nThey see a system that is not responsive to higher level externalities of\npeople \u0026 businesses making plans for the future.  Based on current proposal\nof change-through-inaction, businesses will simply shelve plans to use\nbitcoin and not bother putting those new users on the network.\n\nIf you wait until the need to increase block size is acute, it is already\ntoo late.  (1) Businesses have permanently shelved plans to use bitcoin and\n(2) change at that point produces _larger_ disruption to the fee market.\n\nHard forks require planning many months in advance.  Gavin's timing is\nsound, even though the Gavin/Hearn Bitcoin-XT antics were sub-optimal.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nOn Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 11:12 AM, Pieter Wuille \u003cpieter.wuille at gmail.com\u003e\nwrote:\n\n\u003e I am not saying that economic change is what we want. Only that it is\n\u003e inevitable, independent of whether larger blocks happen or not.\n\u003e\n\u003e I am saying that acting because of fear of economic change is a bad\n\u003e reason. The reason for increase should be because of the higher utility. We\n\u003e need it at some point, but there should be no rush.\n\u003e\n\u003e I do understand that we want to avoid a *sudden* change in economic\n\u003e policy, but I'm generally not too worried. Either fees increase and they\n\u003e get paid, and we're good. But more likely is that some uses just move\n\u003e off-chain because the block chain does not offer what they need. That's\n\u003e sad, but it is inevitable at any size: some uses fit, some don't.\n\u003e\n\u003e --\n\u003e Pieter\n\u003e  On Jun 26, 2015 7:57 PM, \"Jeff Garzik\" \u003cjgarzik at gmail.com\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\n\u003e\u003e It is not \"fear\" of fee pressure.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e 1) Blocks are mostly not-full on average.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e 2) Absent long blocks and stress tests, there is little fee pressure\n\u003e\u003e above the anti-spam relay fee metric, because of #1.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e 3) As such, inducing fee pressure is a delta, a change from years-long\n\u003e\u003e bitcoin economic policy.  Each time we approach the soft limit, Bitcoin\n\u003e\u003e Core increases the soft limit to prevent \"full\" blocks.  Mike Hearn et. al.\n\u003e\u003e lobbies miners to upgrade.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e (note - this is not an endorsement of these actions - it is a neutral\n\u003e\u003e observation)\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e 4) Inaction leads to consistent fee pressure as the months tick on and\n\u003e\u003e system volume grows; thus, inaction leads to economic policy change.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e 5) Economic policy change leads to market and software disruption.  The\n\u003e\u003e market and software - notably wallets - is not prepared for this.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e 6) If you want to change economic policy, that's fine.  But be honest and\n\u003e\u003e admit you are arguing for a change, a delta from current market\n\u003e\u003e expectations and behavior.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e 7) It is critical to first deal with what _is_, not what you wish the\n\u003e\u003e world to be.  You want a fee market to develop.  There is nothing wrong\n\u003e\u003e with that desire.  It remains a delta from where we are today, and that is\n\u003e\u003e critically relevant in a $3b+ market.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 7:09 AM, Pieter Wuille \u003cpieter.wuille at gmail.com\u003e\n\u003e\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e Hello all,\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e here I'm going to try to address a part of the block size debate which\n\u003e\u003e\u003e has been troubling me since the beginning: the reason why people seem to\n\u003e\u003e\u003e want it.\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e People say that larger blocks are necessary. In the long term, I agree -\n\u003e\u003e\u003e in the sense that systems that do not evolve tend to be replaced by other\n\u003e\u003e\u003e systems. This evolution can come in terms of layers on top of Bitcoin's\n\u003e\u003e\u003e blockchain, in terms of the technology underlying various aspects of the\n\u003e\u003e\u003e blockchain itself, and also in the scale that this technology supports.\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e I do, however, fundamentally disagree that a fear for a change in\n\u003e\u003e\u003e economics should be considered to necessitate larger blocks. If it is, and\n\u003e\u003e\u003e there is consensus that we should adapt to it, then there is effectively no\n\u003e\u003e\u003e limit going forward. This is similar to how Congress voting to increase the\n\u003e\u003e\u003e copyright term retroactively from time to time is really no different from\n\u003e\u003e\u003e having an infinite copyright term in the first place. This scares me.\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e Here is how Gavin summarizes the future without increasing block sizes\n\u003e\u003e\u003e in PR 6341:\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e \u003e 1. Transaction confirmation times for transactions with a given fee\n\u003e\u003e\u003e will rise; very-low-fee transactions will fail to get confirmed at all.\n\u003e\u003e\u003e \u003e 2. Average transaction fee paid will rise\n\u003e\u003e\u003e \u003e 3. People or applications unwilling or unable to pay the rising fees\n\u003e\u003e\u003e will stop submitting transactions\n\u003e\u003e\u003e \u003e 4. People and businesses will shelve plans to use Bitcoin, stunting\n\u003e\u003e\u003e growth and adoption\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e Is it fair to summarize this as \"Some use cases won't fit any more,\n\u003e\u003e\u003e people will decide to no longer use the blockchain for these purposes, and\n\u003e\u003e\u003e the fees will adapt.\"?\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e I think that is already happening, and will happen at any scale. I\n\u003e\u003e\u003e believe demand for payments in general is nearly infinite, and only a small\n\u003e\u003e\u003e portion of it will eventually fit on a block chain (independent of whether\n\u003e\u003e\u003e its size is limited by consensus rules or economic or technological means).\n\u003e\u003e\u003e Furthermore, systems that compete with Bitcoin in this space already offer\n\u003e\u003e\u003e orders of magnitude more capacity than we can reasonably achieve with any\n\u003e\u003e\u003e blockchain technology at this point.\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e I don't know what subset of use cases Bitcoin will cater to in the long\n\u003e\u003e\u003e term. They have already changed - you see way less betting transactions\n\u003e\u003e\u003e these days than a few years ago for example - and they will keep changing,\n\u003e\u003e\u003e independent of what effective block sizes we end up with. I don't think we\n\u003e\u003e\u003e should be afraid of this change or try to stop it.\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e If you look at graphs of block sizes over time (for example,\n\u003e\u003e\u003e http://rusty.ozlabs.org/?p=498), it seems to me that there is very\n\u003e\u003e\u003e little \"organic\" growth, and a lot of sudden changes (which could\n\u003e\u003e\u003e correspond to changing defaults in miner software, introduction of popular\n\u003e\u003e\u003e sites/services, changes in the economy). I think these can be seen as the\n\u003e\u003e\u003e economy changing to full up the available space, and I believe these will\n\u003e\u003e\u003e keep happening at any size effectively available.\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e None of this is a reason why the size can't increase. However, in my\n\u003e\u003e\u003e opinion, we should do it because we believe it increases utility and\n\u003e\u003e\u003e understand the risks; not because we're afraid of what might happen if we\n\u003e\u003e\u003e don't hurry up. And from that point of view, it seems silly to make a huge\n\u003e\u003e\u003e increase at once...\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e --\n\u003e\u003e\u003e Pieter\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e\u003e\u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e\u003e\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e\u003e\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150626/4980bc88/attachment-0001.html\u003e"}