Message-ID: <557D5239.1070105@henricson.se>
Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2015 12:06:49 +0200
From: Mats Henricson <mats@henricson.se>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64;
	rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.5.0
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>
In-Reply-To: <CAJHLa0NrNqECvqhJWNX=rt3-h4U3jwFWoMCrcbyC6hUT5EqWbw@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

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?
>=20
> There is a large consensus that it needs increasing.  To what?  By what
> factor?
>=20
> 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, fee=
s
> are bid high.  If software high priests choose a size limit of 32mb, sp=
ace
> 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.  Differ=
ent
> users value adoption, decentralization etc. differently.
>=20
> The size limit is an economic policy lever that needs to be transitione=
d
> -away- from software and software developers, to the free market.
>=20
> A simple, e.g. hard fork to 2MB or 4MB does not fix higher level govern=
ance
> problems associated with actors lobbying developers, even if a cloister=
ed
> 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> wr=
ote:
>=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, though ;)
>>
>> - 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=85and particularly for min=
ers.
>>> 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?
>>
>>
>>
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------=
-------
>=20
>=20
>=20
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>=20