rich1.0npub18nln9r4lzug8hzsmegqwsl9040ckpqquyz73v4du495xmmepwf0qaltg35https://nostr.ae/npub18nln9r4lzug8hzsmegqwsl9040ckpqquyz73v4du495xmmepwf0qaltg35njumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2015-06-14 📝 Original message:Jeff, with all due respect, but I've seen you saying this a few times now, that this decision is oh so difficult and important. But this is not helpful. We all know that. Even I. Make a suggestion, or stay out of the debate! Mats On 06/14/2015 07:36 AM, Jeff Garzik wrote: > The choice is very real and on-point. What should the block size limit > be? Why? > > There is a large consensus that it needs increasing. To what? By what > factor? > > The size limit literally defines the fee market, the whole damn thing. If > software high priests choose a size limit of 300k, space is scarce, fees > are bid high. If software high priests choose a size limit of 32mb, space > is plentiful, fees are near zero. Market actors take their signals > accordingly. Some business models boom, some business models fail, as a > direct result of changing this unintentionally-added speedbump. Different > users value adoption, decentralization etc. differently. > > The size limit is an economic policy lever that needs to be transitioned > -away- from software and software developers, to the free market. > > A simple, e.g. hard fork to 2MB or 4MB does not fix higher level governance > problems associated with actors lobbying developers, even if a cloistered > and vetted Technical Advisory Board as has been proposed. > > > > > > > > On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 1:20 AM, Eric Lombrozo <elombrozo at gmail.com> wrote: > >> I definitely think we need some voting system for metaconsensus…but if >> we’re going to seriously consider this we should look at the problem much >> more generally. Using false choices doesn’t really help, though ;) >> >> - Eric Lombrozo >> >> >> On Jun 13, 2015, at 10:13 PM, Jeff Garzik <jgarzik at bitpay.com> wrote: >> >> On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 1:08 AM, Eric Lombrozo <elombrozo at gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> 2) BIP100 has direct economic consequences…and particularly for miners. >>> It lends itself to much greater corruptibility. >>> >>> >> What is the alternative? Have a Chief Scientist or Technical Advisory >> Board choose what is a proper fee, what is a proper level of >> decentralization, a proper growth factor? >> >> >> > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > _______________________________________________ > Bitcoin-development mailing list > Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development >