{"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:2015-07-22\n📝 Original message:On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 9:52 AM, Pieter Wuille via bitcoin-dev \u003c\nbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e Some people have called the prospect of limited block space and the\n\u003e development of a fee market a change in policy compared to the past. I\n\u003e respectfully disagree with that. Bitcoin Core is not running the Bitcoin\n\u003e economy, and its developers have no authority to set its rules. Change in\n\u003e economics is always happening, and should be expected. Worse, intervening\n\u003e in consensus changes would make the ecosystem more dependent on the group\n\u003e taking that decision, not less.\n\u003e\n\u003e\nThis completely ignores *reality*, what users have experienced for the past\n~6 years.\n\n\"Change in economics is always happening\" does not begin to approach the\nscale of the change.\n\nFor the entirety of bitcoin's history, absent long blocks and traffic\nbursts, fee pressure has been largely absent.\n\nMoving to a new economic policy where fee pressure is consistently present\nis radically different from what users, markets, and software have\nexperienced and *lived.*\n\nAnalysis such as [1][2] and more shows that users will hit a \"painful\"\n\"wall\" and market disruption will occur - eventually settling to a new\nequilibrium after a period of chaos - when blocks are consistently full.\n\n[1] http://hashingit.com/analysis/34-bitcoin-traffic-bulletin\n[2] http://gavinandresen.ninja/why-increasing-the-max-block-size-is-urgent\n\nFirst, users \u0026 market are forced through this period of chaos by \"let a fee\nmarket develop\" as the whole market changes to a radically different\neconomic policy, once the network has never seen before.\n\nNext, when blocks are consistently full, the past consensus was that block\nsize limit will be increased eventually.  What happens at that point?\n\nAnswer - Users \u0026 market are forced through a second period of chaos and\ndisruption as the fee market is rebooted *again* by changing the block size\nlimit.\n\nThe average user hears a lot of noise on both sides of the block size\ndebate, and really has no idea that the new \"let a fee market develop\"\nBitcoin Core policy is going to *raise fees* on them.\n\nIt is clear that\n- \"let the fee market develop, Right Now\" has not been thought through\n- Users are not prepared for a brand new economic policy\n- Users are unaware that a brand new economic policy will be foisted upon\nthem\n\n\n\n\u003e So to point out what I consider obvious: if Bitcoin requires central\n\u003e control over its rules by a group of developers, it is completely\n\u003e uninteresting to me. Consensus changes should be done using consensus, and\n\u003e the default in case of controversy is no change.\n\u003e\n\nFalse.\n\nAll that has to do be done to change bitcoin to a new economic policy - not\nseen in the entire 6 year history of bitcoin - is to stonewall work on\nblock size.\n\nClosing size increase PRs and failing to participate in planning for a\nblock size increase accomplishes your stated goal of changing bitcoin to a\nnew economic policy.\n\n\"no [code] change\"... changes bitcoin to a brand new economic policy,\npicking economic winners \u0026 losers.  Some businesses will be priced out of\nbitcoin, etc.\n\nStonewalling size increase changes is just as much as a Ben Bernanke/FOMC\nmove as increasing the hard limit by hard fork.\n\n\n\n\u003e My personal opinion is that we - as a community - should indeed let a fee\n\u003e market develop, and rather sooner than later, and that \"kicking the can\n\u003e down the road\" is an incredibly dangerous precedent: if we are willing to\n\u003e go through the risk of a hard fork because of a fear of change of\n\u003e economics, then I believe that community is not ready to deal with change\n\u003e at all. And some change is inevitable, at any block size. Again, this does\n\u003e not mean the block size needs to be fixed forever, but its intent should be\n\u003e growing with the evolution of technology, not a panic reaction because a\n\u003e fear of change.\n\u003e\n\u003e But I am not in any position to force this view. I only hope that people\n\u003e don't think a fear of economic change is reason to give up consensus.\n\u003e\n\nActually you are.\n\nWhen size increase progress gets frozen out of Bitcoin Core, that just\n*increases* the chances that progress must be made through a contentious\nhard fork.\n\nFurther, it increases the market disruption users will experience, as\ndescribed above.\n\nThink about the users.  Please.\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150722/fb24245a/attachment-0001.html\u003e"}