MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <FC95D096-74AE-4B1C-B11B-1CB718538E7D@gmail.com>
References: <CADm_WcYWh5EnBCzQQVc04sf-0seh2zrmc+5dH8Z-Bo78jhPnfA@mail.gmail.com>
	<49257841-66C8-4EF7-980B-73DC604CA591@mattcorallo.com>
	<CADm_WcYdAHP95mrxH0CjvxKaV12rXEdBXf-L5QtKHuBL1ndFaQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<FC95D096-74AE-4B1C-B11B-1CB718538E7D@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 21:58:35 -0500
Message-ID: <CADm_WcYhPqZZ5KQ7DxyFgkk5td4ircrXwArg_guWDPWPtnCxhw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@gmail.com>
To: Eric Lombrozo <elombrozo@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b3a9c14ea289505270f326c
Cc: Jeff Garzik via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Segregated Witness in the context of Scaling
	Bitcoin
Precedence: list

--047d7b3a9c14ea289505270f326c
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 9:44 PM, Eric Lombrozo <elombrozo@gmail.com> wrote:

> At least SW *is* a scaling solution (albeit most of the important benefits
> are long term). The issue of fee events has nothing to do with scaling - it
> has to do with economics...specifically whether we should be subsidizing
> transactions, who should pay the bill for it, etc. My own personal opinion
> is that increasing validation costs works against adoption, not for
> it...even if it artificially keeps fees low - and we'll have to deal with a
> fee event sooner or later anyhow. You may disagree with my opinion, but
> please, let's stop confounding the economic issues with actual scaling.
>

At least on my part, the title of the 1st email was "It's economics & ..."
and focused on (a) economics and (b) transition issues.  There was no
confounding.  There was a list of real problems and risks taken when 1M is
not lifted in the short term.

Thus "SW is orthogonal" in these emails, because these problems remain
regardless of SW or no, as the 1st email outlined.

The 2nd email addresses the specific assertion of "no 1M hard fork needed,
because SW."

--047d7b3a9c14ea289505270f326c
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 9:44 PM, Eric Lombrozo <span dir=
=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:elombrozo@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">elomb=
rozo@gmail.com</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div cla=
ss=3D"gmail_quote"><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 =
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div>At least SW *is* a s=
caling solution (albeit most of the important benefits are long term). The =
issue of fee events has nothing to do with scaling - it has to do with econ=
omics...specifically whether we should be subsidizing transactions, who sho=
uld pay the bill for it, etc. My own personal opinion is that increasing va=
lidation costs works against adoption, not for it...even if it artificially=
 keeps fees low - and we&#39;ll have to deal with a fee event sooner or lat=
er anyhow. You may disagree with my opinion, but please, let&#39;s stop con=
founding the economic issues with actual scaling.<br></div></blockquote><di=
v><br></div><div>At least on my part, the title of the 1st email was &quot;=
It&#39;s economics &amp; ...&quot; and focused on (a) economics and (b) tra=
nsition issues.=C2=A0 There was no confounding.=C2=A0 There was a list of r=
eal problems and risks taken when 1M is not lifted in the short term.</div>=
<div><br></div><div>Thus &quot;SW is orthogonal&quot; in these emails, beca=
use these problems remain regardless of SW or no, as the 1st email outlined=
.</div><div><br></div><div>The 2nd email addresses the specific assertion o=
f &quot;no 1M hard fork needed, because SW.&quot;</div><div><br></div><div>=
<br></div></div></div></div>

--047d7b3a9c14ea289505270f326c--