Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of riseup.net
	designates 198.252.153.129 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=198.252.153.129;
	envelope-from=odinn.cyberguerrilla@riseup.net;
	helo=mx1.riseup.net; 
Message-ID: <557DF945.1060909@riseup.net>
Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2015 14:59:33 -0700
From: odinn <odinn.cyberguerrilla@riseup.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64;
	rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
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>
	<CAJHLa0MA6hoquewGSTcWNabpk5OycCpFuOOykDObEF-1NRXqow@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAJHLa0MA6hoquewGSTcWNabpk5OycCpFuOOykDObEF-1NRXqow@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] User vote in blocksize through fees
Precedence: list

-----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=20
> conservatives seem to be glossing over this aspect - much to my=20
> dismay.
>=20
> Choosing the size limit is choosing the size of a scarce resource.=20
> By fiat.
>=20
> It is wrong to think that a "technical consensus" can choose what=20
> is best here.
>=20
> The block size limit defines the scope of a resource for which all=20
> fee market actors bid.  That, in turn, defines who is in the fee=20
> market and how they behave, what market choices are made.
>=20
> It doesn't matter how or why the limit was originally enacted, what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!)
>=20
> The solution lies in transitioning this size limit to the free=20
> market. In the end, the users must choose their desired level of=20
> growth, decentralization, etc.  We cannot rely on some dev's idea=20
> of the proper level of fee, proper level of growth, proper level
> of decentralization.
>=20
> And IMO, a "floating limit with training wheels" is better and=20
> stronger for bitcoin's health from a governance, user choice and=20
> free market perspective than simply "hard fork to 2MB, come back=20
> again in 6 months."
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 6:34 AM, Benjamin=20
> <benjamin.l.cordes@gmail.com <mailto:benjamin.l.cordes@gmail.com>>=20
> wrote:
>=20
> "The size limit is an economic policy lever that needs to be=20
> transitioned -away- from software and software developers, to the=20
> free market."
>=20
> Exactly right. Bitcoin does not have a free market for fee though,=20
> and literally all the discussion so far has neglected some=20
> fundamental aspect of this, as you described. It's not at all a=20
> "technical" or "engineering" decision. It's the question of how to=20
> potentially re-design a fundamental part of Bitcoin, and the=20
> proposals so far don't address this. What is the price of the=20
> scarce resource of the blockchain and the mechanism to decide on=20
> price, once the subsidy runs out?
>=20
> On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 12:06 PM, Mats Henricson <mats@henricson.se
> <mailto:mats@henricson.se>> wrote:
>> Jeff,
>>=20
>> with all due respect, but I've seen you saying this a few times=20
>> now, that this decision is oh so difficult and important.
>>=20
>> But this is not helpful. We all know that. Even I.
>>=20
>> Make a suggestion, or stay out of the debate!
>>=20
>> Mats
>>=20
>> On 06/14/2015 07:36 AM, Jeff Garzik wrote:
>>> The choice is very real and on-point.  What should the block=20
>>> size
> limit
>>> be?  Why?
>>>=20
>>> There is a large consensus that it needs increasing.  To what?
>>>=20
> By what
>>> factor?
>>>=20
>>> The size limit literally defines the fee market, the whole=20
>>> 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=20
>>> signals accordingly.  Some business models boom, some business=20
>>> models
> fail, as a
>>> direct result of changing this unintentionally-added
>>> speedbump.
>>>=20
> Different
>>> users value adoption, decentralization etc. differently.
>>>=20
>>> The size limit is an economic policy lever that needs to be
> transitioned
>>> -away- from software and software developers, to the free=20
>>> market.
>>>=20
>>> A simple, e.g. hard fork to 2MB or 4MB does not fix higher=20
>>> level
> governance
>>> problems associated with actors lobbying developers, even if a
> cloistered
>>> and vetted Technical Advisory Board as has been proposed.
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>> On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 1:20 AM, Eric Lombrozo
> <elombrozo@gmail.com <mailto:elombrozo@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>=20
>>>> I definitely think we need some voting system for
> metaconsensus=85but if
>>>> we=92re going to seriously consider this we should look at the
> problem much
>>>> more generally. Using false choices doesn=92t really help,=20
>>>> though ;)
>>>>=20
>>>> - Eric Lombrozo
>>>>=20
>>>>=20
>>>> On Jun 13, 2015, at 10:13 PM, Jeff Garzik=20
>>>> <jgarzik@bitpay.com
> <mailto:jgarzik@bitpay.com>> wrote:
>>>>=20
>>>> On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 1:08 AM, Eric Lombrozo
> <elombrozo@gmail.com <mailto:elombrozo@gmail.com>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>=20
>>>>> 2) BIP100 has direct economic consequences=85and
>>>>> particularly for
> miners.
>>>>> It lends itself to much greater corruptibility.
>>>>>=20
>>>>>=20
>>>> What is the alternative?  Have a Chief Scientist or=20
>>>> Technical
> Advisory
>>>> Board choose what is a proper fee, what is a proper level of
>>>>  decentralization, a proper growth factor?
>>>>=20
>>>>=20
>>>>=20
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>>=20
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
- --------
>
>
>=20
>>=20
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>> _______________________________________________=20
>>> Bitcoin-development mailing list=20
>>> Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
> <mailto:Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>
>>>
>>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
- --------
>
>
>=20
_______________________________________________
>> Bitcoin-development mailing list=20
>> Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
> <mailto:Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>=20
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
- --------
>
>
>=20
_______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list=20
> Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net=20
> <mailto:Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>=20
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> -- Jeff Garzik Bitcoin core developer and open source evangelist=20
> BitPay, Inc.      https://bitpay.com/
>=20
>=20
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
- --------
>
>
>=20
>=20
>=20
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net=20
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>=20

- --=20
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=3D
=3DubcH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----