rich1.0npub17kz55p7ysz4ftvq2xyr2zamc776cygwcm5fdz8ndj3jm5umm65xq4sr5tqhttps://nostr.ae/npub17kz55p7ysz4ftvq2xyr2zamc776cygwcm5fdz8ndj3jm5umm65xq4sr5tqnjumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2015-06-14 📝 Original message:"The size limit is an economic policy lever that needs to be transitioned -away- from software and software developers, to the free market." Exactly right. Bitcoin does not have a free market for fee though, and literally all the discussion so far has neglected some fundamental aspect of this, as you described. It's not at all a "technical" or "engineering" decision. It's the question of how to potentially re-design a fundamental part of Bitcoin, and the proposals so far don't address this. What is the price of the scarce resource of the blockchain and the mechanism to decide on price, once the subsidy runs out? On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 12:06 PM, Mats Henricson <mats at henricson.se> wrote: > 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 >> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > _______________________________________________ > Bitcoin-development mailing list > Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development