{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1fx98zxt3lzspjs5f4msr0fxysx5euucm29ghysryju7vpc9j0jzqtcl2d8","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1fx98zxt3lzspjs5f4msr0fxysx5euucm29ghysryju7vpc9j0jzqtcl2d8","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2015-08-04\n📝 Original message:On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 2:19 PM, Hector Chu \u003chectorchu at gmail.com\u003e wrote:\n\u003e On 4 August 2015 at 12:59, Jorge Timón \u003cjtimon at jtimon.cc\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e That is not my position. Again, I don't know what the right blocksize\n\u003e\u003e for the short term is (I don't think anybody does).\n\u003e\n\u003e You have no position (i.e. neutral). In other words, keeping the existing\n\u003e limit.\n\nNo, I think 1 MB is just as arbitrary as any other size proposed.\nAll I want is for consensus change proponents to try harder to\nconvince other users (including me)\n\n\u003e\u003e Therefore how the change can affect mining centralization must be the\n\u003e\u003e main concern, instead of (also artificial) projections about usage\n\u003e\u003e growth (no matter how organic their curves look).\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e The degree of mining decentralization is only one of many concerns. Users'\n\u003e main concern is timely confirmation of low-fee transactions. Miners' concern\n\u003e is the amount of profit they make.\n\nNo, if the changed rule only serves to limit centralization, then how\nthat limitation to centralization is affected should be the first\nthing to consider.\nIf miners' concern was only the amount of profit they make they\nwouldn't mine free transactions already.\nYou cannot possibly know what all users' are concern about, so I will\njust ignore any further claim in that direction.\nTalk for yourself: your arguments won't be more reasonable just\nbecause you claim that all users think like you do.\n\n\u003e\u003e Also I don't think \"hitting the limit\" must be necessarily harmful and\n\u003e\u003e if it is, I don't understand why hitting it at 1MB will be more\n\u003e\u003e harmful than hitting it at 2MB, 8MB or 8GB.\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e The limit won't even get to be hit, because all the users that get thrown\n\u003e out of Bitcoin will have moved over to a system supporting a larger block\n\u003e size.\n\nI disagree with this wild prediction as well.\n\n\u003e\u003e I don't know where you get your \"majority\" from or what it even means\n\u003e\u003e (majority of users, majority of the coins, of miners?)\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e The majority which the miners are beholden to is the economic majority.\n\u003e https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Economic_majority\n\nAnd I assume the way that vaguely defined \"economic majority\"\ncommunicates with you through a crystal ball or something\n\n\u003e\u003e But there's something I'm missing something there...why my position\n\u003e\u003e doesn't matter if it's not a majority?\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e Your position is only one of many and it does not carry excess weight to the\n\u003e others. Individually it won't matter, because you can't control the\n\u003e implementation that other people run.\n\nNo more, but not less either.\nNobody can't control the implementation that I (or other people\nconcerned with centralization) run either.\n\n\u003e\u003e How is what the the majority has been told it's best an objective\n\u003e\u003e argument?\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e Don't fight the market. The way the system is designed, the miners will\n\u003e follow along with what the economic majority have decided.\n\nHow is allowing fees from rising above zero \"fighting the market\"?\nThe system is currently designed with a 1 MB limit. I don't think\nthat's sacred or anything, but I really don't feel like I'm fighting\n\"the market\" or \"the way the system is designed\".\nIn any case, what do \"the market\" and \"the way the system is designed\"\nhave to do with what the majority have been told it's best (which you\nseem to think should be a source of truth for some reason I'm still\nmissing)?\n\n\u003e\u003e So if you say 8, I must ask, why not 9?\n\u003e\u003e Why 9 MB is not safe for mining centralization but 8 MB is?\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e 8MB has simply been the focal point for this debate. 9MB is also safe if 8MB\n\u003e is, but I suppose the opponents will be even less happy with 9 than with 8,\n\u003e and we don't want to unnecessarily increase the conflict.\n\nWhy 9 MB is safe but 10 MB isn't?\nThe \"conflict\" won't be resolved by evading hard questions...\n\n\u003e\u003e It seems like the rationale it's always \"the bigger the better\" and\n\u003e\u003e the only limitation is what a few people concerned with mining\n\u003e\u003e centralization (while they still have time to discuss this) are\n\u003e\u003e willing to accept. If that's the case, then there won't be effectively\n\u003e\u003e any limit in the long term and Bitcoin will probably fail in its\n\u003e\u003e decentralization goals.\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e A one-time increase to 8MB is safer than a dynamically growing limit over\n\u003e time for exactly this reason. Admittedly whenever the next debate to\n\u003e increase the block size over 8MB happens it will be even more painful and\n\u003e non-obvious, but that is the safety check to prevent unbounded block size\n\u003e increase.\n\nWill there ever be a debate that results in \"further blocksize\nincreases at this point are very risky for mining centralization\"?\nHow will we tell then? Can't we use the same criteria now?"}