{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1azvhdrf9fu6n0tm7yez4j6zcxcedp2ct6nrcq3z74naqs7kgpk8s5t2krq","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1azvhdrf9fu6n0tm7yez4j6zcxcedp2ct6nrcq3z74naqs7kgpk8s5t2krq","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2015-06-14\n📝 Original message:\u003e On Jun 14, 2015, at 3:34 AM, Benjamin \u003cbenjamin.l.cordes at gmail.com\u003e wrote:\n\u003e \n\u003e \"The size limit is an economic policy lever that needs to be\n\u003e transitioned -away- from software and software developers, to the free\n\u003e market.\"\n\u003e \n\u003e Exactly right. Bitcoin does not have a free market for fee though, and\n\u003e literally all the discussion so far has neglected some fundamental\n\u003e aspect of this, as you described. It's not at all a \"technical\" or\n\u003e \"engineering\" decision. It's the question of how to potentially\n\u003e re-design a fundamental part of Bitcoin, and the proposals so far\n\u003e don't address this. What is the price of the scarce resource of the\n\u003e blockchain and the mechanism to decide on price, once the subsidy runs\n\u003e out?\n\u003e \n\nIn addition, fees are complicated by the fact that they are used as an anti-spam measure for relay nodes…who don’t see ANY direct compensation whatsoever for providing that service. So we really have two different fees being tacked on…but the miners get to keep all of it…and the relay fee is being hard coded into the software.\n\nFee calculation heuristics for wallets are already far from trivial - this is another issue that needs to be addressed.\n\n- Eric Lombrozo\n\n\u003e On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 12:06 PM, Mats Henricson \u003cmats at henricson.se\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\u003e Jeff,\n\u003e\u003e \n\u003e\u003e with all due respect, but I've seen you saying this a few times\n\u003e\u003e now, that this decision is oh so difficult and important.\n\u003e\u003e \n\u003e\u003e But this is not helpful. We all know that. Even I.\n\u003e\u003e \n\u003e\u003e Make a suggestion, or stay out of the debate!\n\u003e\u003e \n\u003e\u003e Mats\n\u003e\u003e \n\u003e\u003e On 06/14/2015 07:36 AM, Jeff Garzik wrote:\n\u003e\u003e\u003e The choice is very real and on-point.  What should the block size limit\n\u003e\u003e\u003e be?  Why?\n\u003e\u003e\u003e \n\u003e\u003e\u003e There is a large consensus that it needs increasing.  To what?  By what\n\u003e\u003e\u003e factor?\n\u003e\u003e\u003e \n\u003e\u003e\u003e The size limit literally defines the fee market, the whole damn thing.  If\n\u003e\u003e\u003e software high priests choose a size limit of 300k, space is scarce, fees\n\u003e\u003e\u003e are bid high.  If software high priests choose a size limit of 32mb, space\n\u003e\u003e\u003e is plentiful, fees are near zero.  Market actors take their signals\n\u003e\u003e\u003e accordingly.  Some business models boom, some business models fail, as a\n\u003e\u003e\u003e direct result of changing this unintentionally-added speedbump.  Different\n\u003e\u003e\u003e users value adoption, decentralization etc. differently.\n\u003e\u003e\u003e \n\u003e\u003e\u003e The size limit is an economic policy lever that needs to be transitioned\n\u003e\u003e\u003e -away- from software and software developers, to the free market.\n\u003e\u003e\u003e \n\u003e\u003e\u003e A simple, e.g. hard fork to 2MB or 4MB does not fix higher level governance\n\u003e\u003e\u003e problems associated with actors lobbying developers, even if a cloistered\n\u003e\u003e\u003e and vetted Technical Advisory Board as has been proposed.\n\u003e\u003e\u003e \n\u003e\u003e\u003e \n\u003e\u003e\u003e \n\u003e\u003e\u003e \n\u003e\u003e\u003e \n\u003e\u003e\u003e \n\u003e\u003e\u003e \n\u003e\u003e\u003e On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 1:20 AM, Eric Lombrozo \u003celombrozo at gmail.com\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\u003e\u003e \n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e I definitely think we need some voting system for metaconsensus…but if\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e we’re going to seriously consider this we should look at the problem much\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e more generally. Using false choices doesn’t really help, though ;)\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e \n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e - Eric Lombrozo\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e \n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e \n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e On Jun 13, 2015, at 10:13 PM, Jeff Garzik \u003cjgarzik at bitpay.com\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e \n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 1:08 AM, Eric Lombrozo \u003celombrozo at gmail.com\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e \n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e 2) BIP100 has direct economic consequences…and particularly for miners.\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e It lends itself to much greater corruptibility.\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e \n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e \n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e What is the alternative?  Have a Chief Scientist or Technical Advisory\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e Board choose what is a proper fee, what is a proper level of\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e decentralization, a proper growth factor?\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e \n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e \n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e \n\u003e\u003e\u003e \n\u003e\u003e\u003e \n\u003e\u003e\u003e \n\u003e\u003e\u003e \n\u003e\u003e\u003e ------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\u003e\u003e\u003e \n\u003e\u003e\u003e \n\u003e\u003e\u003e \n\u003e\u003e\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e\u003e\u003e Bitcoin-development mailing list\n\u003e\u003e\u003e Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net\n\u003e\u003e\u003e https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development\n\u003e\u003e\u003e \n\u003e\u003e \n\u003e\u003e ------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\u003e\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e\u003e Bitcoin-development mailing list\n\u003e\u003e Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net\n\u003e\u003e https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development\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\n-------------- next part --------------\nA non-text attachment was scrubbed...\nName: signature.asc\nType: application/pgp-signature\nSize: 842 bytes\nDesc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150614/7bda2c1b/attachment.sig\u003e"}