rich1.0npub1kf0ppcjaguxekg24yx6smgxlu73qn0k8lm0t2wrqc0scpl7u3sgsmf3f58https://nostr.ae/npub1kf0ppcjaguxekg24yx6smgxlu73qn0k8lm0t2wrqc0scpl7u3sgsmf3f58njumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2015-12-16 📝 Original message:On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 1:34 PM, Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille at gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 3:53 PM, Jeff Garzik via bitcoin-dev > <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > 2) If block size stays at 1M, the Bitcoin Core developer team should > sign a > > collective note stating their desire to transition to a new economic > policy, > > that of "healthy fee market" and strongly urge users to examine their fee > > policies, wallet software, transaction volumes and other possible User > > impacting outcomes. > > You present this as if the Bitcoin Core development team is in charge > of deciding the network consensus rules, and is responsible for making > changes to it in order to satisfy economic demand. If that is the > case, Bitcoin has failed, in my opinion. > This circles back to Problem #1: Avoidance of a choice is a still a choice - failing to ACK a MAX_BLOCK_SIZE increase still creates very real Economic Change Event risk. And #3: If the likely predicted course is that Bitcoin Core will not accept a protocol change changing MAX_BLOCK_SIZE via hard fork in the short term, the core dev team should communicate that position clearly to users and media. Hitting a Fee Event is market changing, potentially reshuffling economic actors to a notable degree. Maintaining a short term economic policy of fixed 1M supply in the face of rising transaction volume carries risks that should be analyzed and communicated. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20151216/117c35a7/attachment.html>