{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub10z4xjfgftd3fm9dfu7dw6mkemgyhxgumcmhd7yd0ggjq7rsaw4wqa3xfzw","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub10z4xjfgftd3fm9dfu7dw6mkemgyhxgumcmhd7yd0ggjq7rsaw4wqa3xfzw","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2015-07-22\n📝 Original message:Jeff I respectively disagree with many of your points, but let me just\npoint out 2.\n\nOver the last 6 years there may not have been fee pressure, but certainly\nthere was the expectation that it was going to happen.  Look at all the\nwork that has been put into fee estimation, why do that work if the\nexpectation was there would be no fee pressure?\n\nI know you respect Pieter's work, so I don't want to twist your words, but\nfor the clarity of other people reading these posts, it sounds like you're\naccusing Pieter and others of stonewalling size increases and not\nparticipating in planning for them.  Without debate, no one has done more\nfor this project to make eventual size increases technically feasible than\nPieter.  We only have the privilege of even having this debate as a result\nof his work.\n\n\n\nOn Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 1:33 PM, Jeff Garzik via bitcoin-dev \u003c\nbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 9:52 AM, Pieter Wuille via bitcoin-dev \u003c\n\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\n\u003e\u003e Some people have called the prospect of limited block space and the\n\u003e\u003e development of a fee market a change in policy compared to the past. I\n\u003e\u003e respectfully disagree with that. Bitcoin Core is not running the Bitcoin\n\u003e\u003e economy, and its developers have no authority to set its rules. Change in\n\u003e\u003e economics is always happening, and should be expected. Worse, intervening\n\u003e\u003e in consensus changes would make the ecosystem more dependent on the group\n\u003e\u003e taking that decision, not less.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e This completely ignores *reality*, what users have experienced for the\n\u003e past ~6 years.\n\u003e\n\u003e \"Change in economics is always happening\" does not begin to approach the\n\u003e scale of the change.\n\u003e\n\u003e For the entirety of bitcoin's history, absent long blocks and traffic\n\u003e bursts, fee pressure has been largely absent.\n\u003e\n\u003e Moving to a new economic policy where fee pressure is consistently present\n\u003e is radically different from what users, markets, and software have\n\u003e experienced and *lived.*\n\u003e\n\u003e Analysis such as [1][2] and more shows that users will hit a \"painful\"\n\u003e \"wall\" and market disruption will occur - eventually settling to a new\n\u003e equilibrium after a period of chaos - when blocks are consistently full.\n\u003e\n\u003e [1] http://hashingit.com/analysis/34-bitcoin-traffic-bulletin\n\u003e [2] http://gavinandresen.ninja/why-increasing-the-max-block-size-is-urgent\n\u003e\n\u003e First, users \u0026 market are forced through this period of chaos by \"let a\n\u003e fee market develop\" as the whole market changes to a radically different\n\u003e economic policy, once the network has never seen before.\n\u003e\n\u003e Next, when blocks are consistently full, the past consensus was that block\n\u003e size limit will be increased eventually.  What happens at that point?\n\u003e\n\u003e Answer - Users \u0026 market are forced through a second period of chaos and\n\u003e disruption as the fee market is rebooted *again* by changing the block\n\u003e size limit.\n\u003e\n\u003e The average user hears a lot of noise on both sides of the block size\n\u003e debate, and really has no idea that the new \"let a fee market develop\"\n\u003e Bitcoin Core policy is going to *raise fees* on them.\n\u003e\n\u003e It is clear that\n\u003e - \"let the fee market develop, Right Now\" has not been thought through\n\u003e - Users are not prepared for a brand new economic policy\n\u003e - Users are unaware that a brand new economic policy will be foisted upon\n\u003e them\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e\u003e So to point out what I consider obvious: if Bitcoin requires central\n\u003e\u003e control over its rules by a group of developers, it is completely\n\u003e\u003e uninteresting to me. Consensus changes should be done using consensus, and\n\u003e\u003e the default in case of controversy is no change.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e False.\n\u003e\n\u003e All that has to do be done to change bitcoin to a new economic policy -\n\u003e not seen in the entire 6 year history of bitcoin - is to stonewall work on\n\u003e block size.\n\u003e\n\u003e Closing size increase PRs and failing to participate in planning for a\n\u003e block size increase accomplishes your stated goal of changing bitcoin to a\n\u003e new economic policy.\n\u003e\n\u003e \"no [code] change\"... changes bitcoin to a brand new economic policy,\n\u003e picking economic winners \u0026 losers.  Some businesses will be priced out of\n\u003e bitcoin, etc.\n\u003e\n\u003e Stonewalling size increase changes is just as much as a Ben Bernanke/FOMC\n\u003e move as increasing the hard limit by hard fork.\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e\u003e My personal opinion is that we - as a community - should indeed let a fee\n\u003e\u003e market develop, and rather sooner than later, and that \"kicking the can\n\u003e\u003e down the road\" is an incredibly dangerous precedent: if we are willing to\n\u003e\u003e go through the risk of a hard fork because of a fear of change of\n\u003e\u003e economics, then I believe that community is not ready to deal with change\n\u003e\u003e at all. And some change is inevitable, at any block size. Again, this does\n\u003e\u003e not mean the block size needs to be fixed forever, but its intent should be\n\u003e\u003e growing with the evolution of technology, not a panic reaction because a\n\u003e\u003e fear of change.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e But I am not in any position to force this view. I only hope that people\n\u003e\u003e don't think a fear of economic change is reason to give up consensus.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e Actually you are.\n\u003e\n\u003e When size increase progress gets frozen out of Bitcoin Core, that just\n\u003e *increases* the chances that progress must be made through a contentious\n\u003e hard fork.\n\u003e\n\u003e Further, it increases the market disruption users will experience, as\n\u003e described above.\n\u003e\n\u003e Think about the users.  Please.\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\u003e\n\u003e\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150722/2fd9f799/attachment-0001.html\u003e"}