rich1.0npub1kf0ppcjaguxekg24yx6smgxlu73qn0k8lm0t2wrqc0scpl7u3sgsmf3f58https://nostr.ae/npub1kf0ppcjaguxekg24yx6smgxlu73qn0k8lm0t2wrqc0scpl7u3sgsmf3f58njumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2015-06-26 📝 Original message:On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 8:24 AM, Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille at gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 5:22 PM, Milly Bitcoin <milly at bitcoins.info> > wrote: > >> >None of this is a reason why the size can't increase. However, in my >> opinion, we should do it because we believe it increases utility and >> understand the risks; not because we're afraid of what might happen if we >> don't hurry up. And from that point of view, it seems silly to make a huge >> increase at once... >> >> Yes. I think people/businesses want some kind of assurance that there is >> a path to get things done when needed rather than immediate changes. Since >> there is currently no clear path/schedule to get any changes accomplished >> they gets anxious. >> > > I think you just proved my point by saying "when needed". > Proposing inaction is not the way you convince people that bitcoin can scale. People and businesses cannot perform any capacity planning and future projections under the proposal of "economic change through inaction." There will be no growth, by your argument, until there is fee pressure. And what happens then? a) Block size limit increases, disrupting and rebooting the fee market. or b) You argue that fees have taken care of the capacity. Waiting until blocks are full before taking action produces even more disruption and market-unpredictable behavior than today. I understand you want a fee market to develop, and increasing the block size limit retards/prevents that. The fact remains that that is a _major_ change to economic policy that creates a _more_ unpredictable system. Who knows when Pieter will agree that a fee market is healthy? And at that time, once blocks are full, changing the block size limit then will produce even more disruption, going from little pressure -> lots of pressure -> little pressure Inaction produces fee pressure produces volatility. And makes it more difficult for system users to perform capacity planning. I see a lot of microscopic fee analysis - economically insignificant for at least 12 months to come - and very little holistic analysis from people arguing that inaction is the best course. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150626/469d8757/attachment-0001.html>