diff options
| author | Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@bitpay.com> | 2015-06-14 11:07:06 -0400 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | bitcoindev <bitcoindev@gnusha.org> | 2015-06-14 15:07:34 +0000 |
| commit | efc26246f5fc9c8659624a13c36f59493faf3981 (patch) | |
| tree | 5d50c2c6bccc28c0c0e449d25c9ccab6ae1e0c92 /ec | |
| parent | 9190633aabf5c60d9ae45aa3c354b6d50623e6cb (diff) | |
| download | pi-bitcoindev-efc26246f5fc9c8659624a13c36f59493faf3981.tar.gz pi-bitcoindev-efc26246f5fc9c8659624a13c36f59493faf3981.zip | |
Re: [Bitcoin-development] User vote in blocksize through fees
Diffstat (limited to 'ec')
| -rw-r--r-- | ec/62ded0b22d0bb82894b5e463c45069a830b816 | 436 |
1 files changed, 436 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/ec/62ded0b22d0bb82894b5e463c45069a830b816 b/ec/62ded0b22d0bb82894b5e463c45069a830b816 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..bac23df3a --- /dev/null +++ b/ec/62ded0b22d0bb82894b5e463c45069a830b816 @@ -0,0 +1,436 @@ +Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193] + helo=mx.sourceforge.net) + by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) + (envelope-from <jgarzik@bitpay.com>) id 1Z49VW-0005i1-V5 + for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; + Sun, 14 Jun 2015 15:07:34 +0000 +Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of bitpay.com + designates 209.85.218.45 as permitted sender) + client-ip=209.85.218.45; envelope-from=jgarzik@bitpay.com; + helo=mail-oi0-f45.google.com; +Received: from mail-oi0-f45.google.com ([209.85.218.45]) + by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) + (Exim 4.76) id 1Z49VV-0007ru-Io + for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; + Sun, 14 Jun 2015 15:07:34 +0000 +Received: by oiha141 with SMTP id a141so45250352oih.0 + for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>; + Sun, 14 Jun 2015 08:07:28 -0700 (PDT) +X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; + d=1e100.net; s=20130820; + h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date + :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; + bh=SRIAio8hI0nZpnEQcF1KX4wIa0fcSWup/tMZPj7p/nM=; + b=NfU2AXpfai91OHiQu5CbXyOvqK8D2XIcdLtKuvQ+UVN8nbNAupZsJYTwXqfkgVK3GF + Q6eQnCeXUYEVnYYPHHii+kgSW5+SF+A17nP3xOkBVxhsFxYW3xCmpK2TTTE6V+2kwJAQ + rWQrjQ52Say7hcOLpABZJce7DGJZtGg/hwTBBWhPIknIn5rxo4/+eF8hDycuJVZT4lcE + n2s2eGOKKQAYPrPsGDa8YyQp81HM1KBrCBG7p6QO1h4aVxaSywFDQhTjaFtZLK+WafmC + YanPIJttoPVCQCLSCti6AmJ7AsgIFxSjPpcQgJ0kcC+M+czYl67kjt1U2SJv+KORPkEq + MtFw== +X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkCw3oCad1w0pdHpfYMB+K1BNAXn0UnHRobyqMDAlWGWKchjjSRUYFe9pOUmWxSHcgGldDk +X-Received: by 10.202.69.130 with SMTP id s124mr18986132oia.70.1434294448115; + Sun, 14 Jun 2015 08:07:28 -0700 (PDT) +MIME-Version: 1.0 +Received: by 10.202.108.149 with HTTP; Sun, 14 Jun 2015 08:07:06 -0700 (PDT) +In-Reply-To: <CAOoPuRaaA2Bi3RJCpi-vF6odSbTRwfOUi+x7csS8VQYkoWN7bw@mail.gmail.com> +References: <20150612181153.GB19199@muck> + <CAJN5wHVj=KfQ3_KYOKee9uq4LNPwQ7x5nGuKDHEMUqGF4LSDLg@mail.gmail.com> + <CAFzgq-y5xBSXexVi0mJw_w89R2_AHJCgmj=gLN4CK_-YaO4-eg@mail.gmail.com> + <3BB36FC7-9212-42A1-A756-A66929C15D4F@gmail.com> + <CAJHLa0Oh0wm_1SynFdCu+WkVD-gTGk0ZUNgQV0GVj0-3zL=zzw@mail.gmail.com> + <04527D50-0118-4E74-8226-3E29B29CC7D8@gmail.com> + <CAJHLa0NrNqECvqhJWNX=rt3-h4U3jwFWoMCrcbyC6hUT5EqWbw@mail.gmail.com> + <557D5239.1070105@henricson.se> + <CAOoPuRaaA2Bi3RJCpi-vF6odSbTRwfOUi+x7csS8VQYkoWN7bw@mail.gmail.com> +From: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@bitpay.com> +Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2015 11:07:06 -0400 +Message-ID: <CAJHLa0MA6hoquewGSTcWNabpk5OycCpFuOOykDObEF-1NRXqow@mail.gmail.com> +To: Benjamin <benjamin.l.cordes@gmail.com>, + Gavin Andresen <gavin@bitcoinfoundation.org>, + Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>, + Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>, + Wladimir van der Laan <laanwj@gmail.com> +Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113ddd2e156a4205187bb392 +X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/) +X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. + See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. + -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for + sender-domain + -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record + 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message + -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from + author's domain + 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, + not necessarily valid + -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature +X-Headers-End: 1Z49VV-0007ru-Io +Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net> +Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] User vote in blocksize through fees +X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net +X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 +Precedence: list +List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net> +List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>, + <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe> +List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development> +List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net> +List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help> +List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>, + <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe> +X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2015 15:07:35 -0000 + +--001a113ddd2e156a4205187bb392 +Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 +Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable + +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@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@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 limi= +t +> >> be? Why? +> >> +> >> There is a large consensus that it needs increasing. To what? By wha= +t +> >> 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, fe= +es +> >> 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 transition= +ed +> >> -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@gmail.com> +> wrote: +> >> +> >>> I definitely think we need some voting system for metaconsensus=E2=80= +=A6but if +> >>> we=E2=80=99re going to seriously consider this we should look at the = +problem +> much +> >>> more generally. Using false choices doesn=E2=80=99t really help, thou= +gh ;) +> >>> +> >>> - Eric Lombrozo +> >>> +> >>> +> >>> On Jun 13, 2015, at 10:13 PM, Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@bitpay.com> wrote: +> >>> +> >>> On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 1:08 AM, Eric Lombrozo <elombrozo@gmail.com> +> >>> wrote: +> >>> +> >>>> 2) BIP100 has direct economic consequences=E2=80=A6and particularly = +for +> miners. +> >>>> It lends itself to much greater corruptibility. +> >>>> +> >>>> +> >>> What is the alternative? Have a Chief Scientist or Technical Advisor= +y +> >>> Board choose what is a proper fee, what is a proper level of +> >>> decentralization, a proper growth factor? +> >>> +> >>> +> >>> +> >> +> >> +> >> +> >> +> >> +> -------------------------------------------------------------------------= +----- +> >> +> >> +> >> +> >> _______________________________________________ +> >> Bitcoin-development mailing list +> >> Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net +> >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development +> >> +> > +> > +> -------------------------------------------------------------------------= +----- +> > _______________________________________________ +> > Bitcoin-development mailing list +> > Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net +> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development +> +> +> -------------------------------------------------------------------------= +----- +> _______________________________________________ +> Bitcoin-development mailing list +> Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net +> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development +> + + + +--=20 +Jeff Garzik +Bitcoin core developer and open source evangelist +BitPay, Inc. https://bitpay.com/ + +--001a113ddd2e156a4205187bb392 +Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 +Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable + +<div dir=3D"ltr">Exactly -- both block size proponents and block size chang= +e conservatives seem to be glossing over this aspect - much to my dismay.<d= +iv><br></div><div>Choosing the size limit is choosing the size of a scarce = +resource.=C2=A0 By fiat.</div><div><br></div><div>It is wrong to think that= + a "technical consensus" can choose what is best here.</div><div>= +<br></div><div>The block size limit defines the scope of a resource for whi= +ch all fee market actors bid.=C2=A0 That, in turn, defines who is in the fe= +e market and how they behave, what market choices are made.</div><div><br><= +/div><div>It doesn't matter how or why the limit was originally enacted= +, what Satoshi meant to do.=C2=A0 What matters, economically, is what is.= +=C2=A0 What the software and our $3B economy & market knows and sees to= +day. =C2=A0(I think some block size change proponents miss this!)</div><div= +><br></div><div>The solution lies in transitioning this size limit to the f= +ree market.=C2=A0 In the end, the users must choose their desired level of = +growth, decentralization, etc.=C2=A0 We cannot rely on some dev's idea = +of the proper level of fee, proper level of growth, proper level of decentr= +alization.</div><div><br></div><div>And IMO, a "floating limit with tr= +aining 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."</div><div><br></div><div><b= +r></div><div><br></div><div><br><div><br></div><div><br></div></div></div><= +div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Sun, Jun 14, 20= +15 at 6:34 AM, Benjamin <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:benjamin.l.= +cordes@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">benjamin.l.cordes@gmail.com</a>></sp= +an> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;= +border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class=3D"">"The siz= +e limit is an economic policy lever that needs to be<br> +transitioned -away- from software and software developers, to the free<br> +market."<br> +<br> +</span>Exactly right. Bitcoin does not have a free market for fee though, a= +nd<br> +literally all the discussion so far has neglected some fundamental<br> +aspect of this, as you described. It's not at all a "technical&quo= +t; or<br> +"engineering" decision. It's the question of how to potential= +ly<br> +re-design a fundamental part of Bitcoin, and the proposals so far<br> +don't address this. What is the price of the scarce resource of the<br> +blockchain and the mechanism to decide on price, once the subsidy runs<br> +out?<br> +<div class=3D"HOEnZb"><div class=3D"h5"><br> +On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 12:06 PM, Mats Henricson <<a href=3D"mailto:mats= +@henricson.se">mats@henricson.se</a>> wrote:<br> +> Jeff,<br> +><br> +> with all due respect, but I've seen you saying this a few times<br= +> +> now, that this decision is oh so difficult and important.<br> +><br> +> But this is not helpful. We all know that. Even I.<br> +><br> +> Make a suggestion, or stay out of the debate!<br> +><br> +> Mats<br> +><br> +> On 06/14/2015 07:36 AM, Jeff Garzik wrote:<br> +>> The choice is very real and on-point.=C2=A0 What should the block = +size limit<br> +>> be?=C2=A0 Why?<br> +>><br> +>> There is a large consensus that it needs increasing.=C2=A0 To what= +?=C2=A0 By what<br> +>> factor?<br> +>><br> +>> The size limit literally defines the fee market, the whole damn th= +ing.=C2=A0 If<br> +>> software high priests choose a size limit of 300k, space is scarce= +, fees<br> +>> are bid high.=C2=A0 If software high priests choose a size limit o= +f 32mb, space<br> +>> is plentiful, fees are near zero.=C2=A0 Market actors take their s= +ignals<br> +>> accordingly.=C2=A0 Some business models boom, some business models= + fail, as a<br> +>> direct result of changing this unintentionally-added speedbump.=C2= +=A0 Different<br> +>> users value adoption, decentralization etc. differently.<br> +>><br> +>> The size limit is an economic policy lever that needs to be transi= +tioned<br> +>> -away- from software and software developers, to the free market.<= +br> +>><br> +>> A simple, e.g. hard fork to 2MB or 4MB does not fix higher level g= +overnance<br> +>> problems associated with actors lobbying developers, even if a clo= +istered<br> +>> and vetted Technical Advisory Board as has been proposed.<br> +>><br> +>><br> +>><br> +>><br> +>><br> +>><br> +>><br> +>> On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 1:20 AM, Eric Lombrozo <<a href=3D"mail= +to:elombrozo@gmail.com">elombrozo@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br> +>><br> +>>> I definitely think we need some voting system for metaconsensu= +s=E2=80=A6but if<br> +>>> we=E2=80=99re going to seriously consider this we should look = +at the problem much<br> +>>> more generally. Using false choices doesn=E2=80=99t really hel= +p, though ;)<br> +>>><br> +>>> - Eric Lombrozo<br> +>>><br> +>>><br> +>>> On Jun 13, 2015, at 10:13 PM, Jeff Garzik <<a href=3D"mailt= +o:jgarzik@bitpay.com">jgarzik@bitpay.com</a>> wrote:<br> +>>><br> +>>> On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 1:08 AM, Eric Lombrozo <<a href=3D"= +mailto:elombrozo@gmail.com">elombrozo@gmail.com</a>><br> +>>> wrote:<br> +>>><br> +>>>> 2) BIP100 has direct economic consequences=E2=80=A6and par= +ticularly for miners.<br> +>>>> It lends itself to much greater corruptibility.<br> +>>>><br> +>>>><br> +>>> What is the alternative?=C2=A0 Have a Chief Scientist or Techn= +ical Advisory<br> +>>> Board choose what is a proper fee, what is a proper level of<b= +r> +>>> decentralization, a proper growth factor?<br> +>>><br> +>>><br> +>>><br> +>><br> +>><br> +>><br> +>><br> +>> ------------------------------------------------------------------= +------------<br> +>><br> +>><br> +>><br> +>> _______________________________________________<br> +>> Bitcoin-development mailing list<br> +>> <a href=3D"mailto:Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net">Bitco= +in-development@lists.sourceforge.net</a><br> +>> <a href=3D"https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-de= +velopment" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.sourceforge.n= +et/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development</a><br> +>><br> +><br> +> ----------------------------------------------------------------------= +--------<br> +> _______________________________________________<br> +> Bitcoin-development mailing list<br> +> <a href=3D"mailto:Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net">Bitcoin-d= +evelopment@lists.sourceforge.net</a><br> +> <a href=3D"https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-develo= +pment" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.sourceforge.net/l= +ists/listinfo/bitcoin-development</a><br> +<br> +---------------------------------------------------------------------------= +---<br> +_______________________________________________<br> +Bitcoin-development mailing list<br> +<a href=3D"mailto:Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net">Bitcoin-develo= +pment@lists.sourceforge.net</a><br> +<a href=3D"https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development= +" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/= +listinfo/bitcoin-development</a><br> +</div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear=3D"all"><div><br></div>-- <br>= +<div class=3D"gmail_signature">Jeff Garzik<br>Bitcoin core developer and op= +en source evangelist<br>BitPay, Inc. =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0<a href=3D"https:/= +/bitpay.com/" target=3D"_blank">https://bitpay.com/</a></div> +</div> + +--001a113ddd2e156a4205187bb392-- + + |