{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1xv3g4rkhj7eyape0cqjhc9g4ljdu5axqkgcdewma854a8r7e0mtsl5j2ga","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1xv3g4rkhj7eyape0cqjhc9g4ljdu5axqkgcdewma854a8r7e0mtsl5j2ga","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2015-06-14\n📝 Original message:-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----\nHash: SHA1\n\nNotionally, I agree with what I see written here by Jeff, and I\nappreciate the thoughtfulness that went into this short post to list.\n\nOn 06/14/2015 08:07 AM, Jeff Garzik wrote:\n\u003e Exactly -- both block size proponents and block size change \n\u003e conservatives seem to be glossing over this aspect - much to my \n\u003e dismay.\n\u003e \n\u003e Choosing the size limit is choosing the size of a scarce resource. \n\u003e By fiat.\n\u003e \n\u003e It is wrong to think that a \"technical consensus\" can choose what \n\u003e is best here.\n\u003e \n\u003e The block size limit defines the scope of a resource for which all \n\u003e fee market actors bid.  That, in turn, defines who is in the fee \n\u003e market and how they behave, what market choices are made.\n\u003e \n\u003e It doesn't matter how or why the limit was originally enacted, what\n\u003e Satoshi meant to do.  What matters, economically, is what is. What\n\u003e the software and our $3B economy \u0026 market knows and sees today.  (I\n\u003e think some block size change proponents miss this!)\n\u003e \n\u003e The solution lies in transitioning this size limit to the free \n\u003e market. In the end, the users must choose their desired level of \n\u003e growth, decentralization, etc.  We cannot rely on some dev's idea \n\u003e of the proper level of fee, proper level of growth, proper level\n\u003e of decentralization.\n\u003e \n\u003e And IMO, a \"floating limit with training wheels\" is better and \n\u003e stronger for bitcoin's health from a governance, user choice and \n\u003e free market perspective than simply \"hard fork to 2MB, come back \n\u003e again in 6 months.\"\n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 6:34 AM, Benjamin \n\u003e \u003cbenjamin.l.cordes at gmail.com \u003cmailto:benjamin.l.cordes at gmail.com\u003e\u003e \n\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 \n\u003e free market.\"\n\u003e \n\u003e Exactly right. Bitcoin does not have a free market for fee though, \n\u003e and literally all the discussion so far has neglected some \n\u003e fundamental aspect of this, as you described. It's not at all a \n\u003e \"technical\" or \"engineering\" decision. It's the question of how to \n\u003e potentially re-design a fundamental part of Bitcoin, and the \n\u003e proposals so far don't address this. What is the price of the \n\u003e scarce resource of the blockchain and the mechanism to decide on \n\u003e price, once the subsidy runs out?\n\u003e \n\u003e On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 12:06 PM, Mats Henricson \u003cmats at henricson.se\n\u003e \u003cmailto:mats at henricson.se\u003e\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 \n\u003e\u003e\u003e size\n\u003e 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?\n\u003e\u003e\u003e \n\u003e 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 \n\u003e\u003e\u003e damn\n\u003e thing.  If\n\u003e\u003e\u003e software high priests choose a size limit of 300k, space is\n\u003e scarce, fees\n\u003e\u003e\u003e are bid high.  If software high priests choose a size limit of\n\u003e 32mb, space\n\u003e\u003e\u003e is plentiful, fees are near zero.  Market actors take their \n\u003e\u003e\u003e signals accordingly.  Some business models boom, some business \n\u003e\u003e\u003e models\n\u003e fail, as a\n\u003e\u003e\u003e direct result of changing this unintentionally-added\n\u003e\u003e\u003e speedbump.\n\u003e\u003e\u003e \n\u003e 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\n\u003e transitioned\n\u003e\u003e\u003e -away- from software and software developers, to the free \n\u003e\u003e\u003e market.\n\u003e\u003e\u003e \n\u003e\u003e\u003e A simple, e.g. hard fork to 2MB or 4MB does not fix higher \n\u003e\u003e\u003e level\n\u003e governance\n\u003e\u003e\u003e problems associated with actors lobbying developers, even if a\n\u003e 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\n\u003e \u003celombrozo at gmail.com \u003cmailto:elombrozo at gmail.com\u003e\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\u003e\u003e \n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e I definitely think we need some voting system for\n\u003e metaconsensus…but if\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e we’re going to seriously consider this we should look at the\n\u003e problem much\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e more generally. Using false choices doesn’t really help, \n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e 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 \n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e \u003cjgarzik at bitpay.com\n\u003e \u003cmailto:jgarzik at bitpay.com\u003e\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e \n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 1:08 AM, Eric Lombrozo\n\u003e \u003celombrozo at gmail.com \u003cmailto:elombrozo at gmail.com\u003e\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\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e particularly for\n\u003e 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 \n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e Technical\n\u003e 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 ----------------------------------------------------------------------\n- --------\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e \n\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 \u003cmailto:Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development\n\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e \n\u003e\u003e \n\u003e\u003e \n\u003e\u003e \n\u003e ----------------------------------------------------------------------\n- --------\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e \n_______________________________________________\n\u003e\u003e Bitcoin-development mailing list \n\u003e\u003e Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net\n\u003e \u003cmailto:Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net\u003e\n\u003e\u003e https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development\n\u003e \n\u003e ----------------------------------------------------------------------\n- --------\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e \n_______________________________________________\n\u003e Bitcoin-development mailing list \n\u003e Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net \n\u003e \u003cmailto:Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net\u003e \n\u003e https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development\n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e -- Jeff Garzik Bitcoin core developer and open source evangelist \n\u003e BitPay, Inc.      https://bitpay.com/\n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e ----------------------------------------------------------------------\n- --------\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 \n\n- -- \nhttp://abis.io ~\n\"a protocol concept to enable decentralization\nand expansion of a giving economy, and a new social good\"\nhttps://keybase.io/odinn\n-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----\nVersion: GnuPG v1\n\niQEcBAEBAgAGBQJVfflFAAoJEGxwq/inSG8CrWoIAJOsZHTWqdILE0IYmmE50E/S\nBcbPJJtjodw1liPVJEybyNUKSgq4Ucw9tuQpMVv3hF8bvug6/6HtxAQCptuIKRSw\nWigZyvgm79u474YsPULG+2SltMrOFqmA05jTF9vWo0LBSY4xiMXjT4VwVt9xEcFc\nqHW5OUa1QoFZkaOf/jtY+H3a9w8cHZFlroTkf4MaJkaMo81oSRfWz3Mj8wOz6f8z\nMSEpvQERzETEcV0SqTBnzsoX8toO1s24a9HejMMfbeD7JAy8EvayFb3G1LNzBNVC\n1x/yeLBGnE3Z0P80J0oUR5taLbGJl9+7Hb16rEzxivtZF5FWBdDmvwKBOKJ1Alo=\n=ubcH\n-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----"}