{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub18nln9r4lzug8hzsmegqwsl9040ckpqquyz73v4du495xmmepwf0qaltg35","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub18nln9r4lzug8hzsmegqwsl9040ckpqquyz73v4du495xmmepwf0qaltg35","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2015-06-14\n📝 Original message:Jeff,\n\nwith all due respect, but I've seen you saying this a few times\nnow, that this decision is oh so difficult and important.\n\nBut this is not helpful. We all know that. Even I.\n\nMake a suggestion, or stay out of the debate!\n\nMats\n\nOn 06/14/2015 07:36 AM, Jeff Garzik wrote:\n\u003e The choice is very real and on-point.  What should the block size limit\n\u003e be?  Why?\n\u003e \n\u003e There is a large consensus that it needs increasing.  To what?  By what\n\u003e factor?\n\u003e \n\u003e The size limit literally defines the fee market, the whole damn thing.  If\n\u003e software high priests choose a size limit of 300k, space is scarce, fees\n\u003e are bid high.  If software high priests choose a size limit of 32mb, space\n\u003e is plentiful, fees are near zero.  Market actors take their signals\n\u003e accordingly.  Some business models boom, some business models fail, as a\n\u003e direct result of changing this unintentionally-added speedbump.  Different\n\u003e users value adoption, decentralization etc. differently.\n\u003e \n\u003e The size limit is an economic policy lever that needs to be transitioned\n\u003e -away- from software and software developers, to the free market.\n\u003e \n\u003e A simple, e.g. hard fork to 2MB or 4MB does not fix higher level governance\n\u003e problems associated with actors lobbying developers, even if a cloistered\n\u003e and vetted Technical Advisory Board as has been proposed.\n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 1:20 AM, Eric Lombrozo \u003celombrozo at gmail.com\u003e wrote:\n\u003e \n\u003e\u003e I definitely think we need some voting system for metaconsensus…but if\n\u003e\u003e we’re going to seriously consider this we should look at the problem much\n\u003e\u003e more generally. Using false choices doesn’t really help, though ;)\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e - Eric Lombrozo\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e On Jun 13, 2015, at 10:13 PM, Jeff Garzik \u003cjgarzik at bitpay.com\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 1:08 AM, Eric Lombrozo \u003celombrozo at gmail.com\u003e\n\u003e\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e 2) BIP100 has direct economic consequences…and particularly for miners.\n\u003e\u003e\u003e It lends itself to much greater corruptibility.\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e What is the alternative?  Have a Chief Scientist or Technical Advisory\n\u003e\u003e Board choose what is a proper fee, what is a proper level of\n\u003e\u003e decentralization, a proper growth factor?\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e ------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e Bitcoin-development mailing list\n\u003e Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net\n\u003e https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development\n\u003e"}