rich1.0npub1xv3g4rkhj7eyape0cqjhc9g4ljdu5axqkgcdewma854a8r7e0mtsl5j2gahttps://nostr.ae/npub1xv3g4rkhj7eyape0cqjhc9g4ljdu5axqkgcdewma854a8r7e0mtsl5j2ganjumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2015-06-14 📝 Original message:-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Notionally, I agree with what I see written here by Jeff, and I appreciate the thoughtfulness that went into this short post to list. On 06/14/2015 08:07 AM, Jeff Garzik wrote: > Exactly -- both block size proponents and block size change > conservatives seem to be glossing over this aspect - much to my > dismay. > > Choosing the size limit is choosing the size of a scarce resource. > By fiat. > > It is wrong to think that a "technical consensus" can choose what > is best here. > > The block size limit defines the scope of a resource for which all > fee market actors bid. That, in turn, defines who is in the fee > market and how they behave, what market choices are made. > > It doesn't matter how or why the limit was originally enacted, what > Satoshi meant to do. What matters, economically, is what is. What > the software and our $3B economy & market knows and sees today. (I > think some block size change proponents miss this!) > > The solution lies in transitioning this size limit to the free > market. In the end, the users must choose their desired level of > growth, decentralization, etc. We cannot rely on some dev's idea > of the proper level of fee, proper level of growth, proper level > of decentralization. > > And IMO, a "floating limit with training wheels" is better and > stronger for bitcoin's health from a governance, user choice and > free market perspective than simply "hard fork to 2MB, come back > again in 6 months." > > > > > > > > On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 6:34 AM, Benjamin > <benjamin.l.cordes at gmail.com <mailto:benjamin.l.cordes at gmail.com>> > wrote: > > "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 > <mailto: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 <mailto: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 > <mailto:jgarzik at bitpay.com>> wrote: >>>> >>>> On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 1:08 AM, Eric Lombrozo > <elombrozo at gmail.com <mailto: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 > <mailto:Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net> >>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development > >>> >>> >> >> >> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- - -------- > > > _______________________________________________ >> Bitcoin-development mailing list >> Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net > <mailto:Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net> >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- - -------- > > > _______________________________________________ > Bitcoin-development mailing list > Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net > <mailto:Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development > > > > > -- Jeff Garzik Bitcoin core developer and open source evangelist > BitPay, Inc. https://bitpay.com/ > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- - -------- > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Bitcoin-development mailing list > Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development > - -- http://abis.io ~ "a protocol concept to enable decentralization and expansion of a giving economy, and a new social good" https://keybase.io/odinn -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJVfflFAAoJEGxwq/inSG8CrWoIAJOsZHTWqdILE0IYmmE50E/S BcbPJJtjodw1liPVJEybyNUKSgq4Ucw9tuQpMVv3hF8bvug6/6HtxAQCptuIKRSw WigZyvgm79u474YsPULG+2SltMrOFqmA05jTF9vWo0LBSY4xiMXjT4VwVt9xEcFc qHW5OUa1QoFZkaOf/jtY+H3a9w8cHZFlroTkf4MaJkaMo81oSRfWz3Mj8wOz6f8z MSEpvQERzETEcV0SqTBnzsoX8toO1s24a9HejMMfbeD7JAy8EvayFb3G1LNzBNVC 1x/yeLBGnE3Z0P80J0oUR5taLbGJl9+7Hb16rEzxivtZF5FWBdDmvwKBOKJ1Alo= =ubcH -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----