rich1.0npub1kf0ppcjaguxekg24yx6smgxlu73qn0k8lm0t2wrqc0scpl7u3sgsmf3f58https://nostr.ae/npub1kf0ppcjaguxekg24yx6smgxlu73qn0k8lm0t2wrqc0scpl7u3sgsmf3f58njumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2015-05-07 📝 Original message:Yes - but you must recognize that is precisely 50% of the picture. Others have made different assumptions - taking the [1MB-constrained] market *as it exists today*, rather than in some projected future. Raising the block size limit then becomes a *human decision* to favor some users over others, a *human decision* to prevent an active and competitive free fee market developing at 1MB, a *human decision* to keep transaction fees low to incentivize bitcoin adoption, a *human decision* to value adoption over decentralization. These statements are not value judgements - not saying you are wrong - these are observations of some rather huge, relevant blind spots in this debate. On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 11:29 AM, Mike Hearn <mike at plan99.net> wrote: > It is a trivial *code* change. It is not a trivial change to the >> economics of a $3.2B system. >> > > Hmm - again I'd argue the opposite. > > Up until now Bitcoin has been unconstrained by the hard block size limit. > > If we raise it, Bitcoin will continue to be unconstrained by it. That's > the default "continue as we are" position. > > If it's not raised, then ....... well, then we're in new territory > entirely. Businesses built on the assumption that Bitcoin could become > popular will suddenly have their basic assumptions invalidated. Users will > leave. The technical code change would be zero, but the economic change > would be significant. > -- Jeff Garzik Bitcoin core developer and open source evangelist BitPay, Inc. https://bitpay.com/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150507/a084642c/attachment.html>