Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EBDBB5A9 for ; Thu, 23 Jul 2015 16:17:54 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-oi0-f43.google.com (mail-oi0-f43.google.com [209.85.218.43]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 831FA237 for ; Thu, 23 Jul 2015 16:17:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: by oige126 with SMTP id e126so168680927oig.0 for ; Thu, 23 Jul 2015 09:17:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=8vPlNUg+ZMWSCINZ0bGWFYXdfcsioydFSHmrZyS4uZw=; b=gt0XBg4E85qEpJAk1F6sDf9X0m2x/1O/8pPde1dVe8y1V24LRF1MI0GHGpjK9ev4Fs HynQriskRUpmrssn1i7WkwqxmbUeNYPizvI9X8xyTgZU+95QPG1zuZWaJfDxkVI/iPh+ lE2c304x2UHH2Hb0GIunY7Q+9+ZCnTLgmQyeWzVefa6cjuBQ1AjOSl07CPTP1t0aOFhM kAzJ+Waq4hiUA2Zbu1Pvr5PflAVE7KpZxZMHV7tgEN7UFWSr6WcBZGoJu2ZCFGd3gfMF RYJrc7tVBMPEEuNzzsXIDKFNUUmP0bpy3vYIJyr0gLyOsCaO7LNxqiiuIEby0BVFife/ g1FQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQll271JP/d3RsXlZ3KceUlqbE/08qRa6c9b3n1L7ixbmd76iNuuLGHn0c6GCUmf/G8gm2gP X-Received: by 10.182.186.106 with SMTP id fj10mr9236292obc.54.1437668273893; Thu, 23 Jul 2015 09:17:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.89] (99-8-65-117.lightspeed.davlca.sbcglobal.net. [99.8.65.117]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id x10sm3031839oif.5.2015.07.23.09.17.51 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 23 Jul 2015 09:17:51 -0700 (PDT) To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org References: From: Tom Harding X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110 Message-ID: <55B113AF.40500@thinlink.com> Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 09:17:51 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin Core and hard forks X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 16:17:55 -0000 On 7/23/2015 5:17 AM, Jorge Timón via bitcoin-dev wrote: > If the user expectation is that a price would never arise because > supply is going to be increased ad infinitum and they will always be > able to send fast in-chain bitcoin transactions for free, just like > breath air (an abundant resource) for free, then we should change that > expectation as soon as possible. No. We should accept that reality may change, and we should promote understanding of that fact. We should not artificially manipulate the market "as soon as possible," since we ourselves don't know much at all about how the market will unfold in the future. > the criteria for the consensus block size should be purely based on > technological capacity (propagation benchmarking, etc) and > centralization concerns Right, purely these. There is no place for artificially manipulating expectations. > they will simply advance the front and start another battle, because > their true hidden faction is the "not ever side". Please, Jeff, Gavin, > Mike, show me that I'm wrong on this point. Please, answer my question > this time. If "not now", then when? Bitcoin has all the hash power. The merkle root has effectively infinite capacity. We should be asking HOW to scale the supporting information propagation system appropriately, not WHEN to limit the capacity of the primary time-stamping machine. We haven't tried yet. I can't answer for the people you asked, but personally I haven't thought much about when we should declare failure.