Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2104\))
From: Peter R <peter_r@gmx.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAPkFh0s-o6BXAEC-s9s1UmFwVfMFQKStoJaM0u2Lct9yiP5QBQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 14 Nov 2015 13:45:25 -0800
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <B2C858C1-B15F-49F1-BF7E-02EA7C3FE474@gmx.com>
References: <CAPkFh0s-o6BXAEC-s9s1UmFwVfMFQKStoJaM0u2Lct9yiP5QBQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: =?utf-8?Q?Emin_G=C3=BCn_Sirer?= <el33th4x0r@gmail.com>
Sender: Peter_R@gmx.com
Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] How to evaluate block size increase suggestions.
Precedence: list

> It looks like some specific meta-level criteria would help more at =
this point than new proposals all exploring a different variants of =
block size increase schedules.

I agree.  In fact, I=E2=80=99ll go meta on your meta and suggest that we =
should first discuss how Bitcoin should be governed in the first place.  =
Should Bitcoin evolve from the =E2=80=9Cbottom up,=E2=80=9D or from the =
=E2=80=9Ctop down=E2=80=9D?

If one=E2=80=99s answer is from the =E2=80=9Ctop-down,=E2=80=9D then the =
meta-level criteria can be endlessly debated, for they all involve some =
sort of tradeoff, they all require some sort of compromise.  The =E2=80=9C=
top down=E2=80=9D perspective holds that people might make poor choices =
if given the freedom to easily do so--it holds that the trade-offs must =
be balanced instead by experts. =20

However, if one's answer is from the =E2=80=9Cbottom up,=E2=80=9D then =
the meta-level criteria is very easy: we do what the people wants. We =
allow the people to weigh the tradeoffs and then we watch as consensus =
emerges through a decentralized process, objectively represented by the =
longest proof-of-work chain. =20

Regarding the block size limit debate, at the end of the day it comes =
down to two things:

1.  How big of a block will my node accept today?

2.  What do I want my node to do if the longest chain includes a block =
larger than the limit I set?

If one concedes that Bitcoin should be governed from the =E2=80=9Cbottom =
up,=E2=80=9D then it is already possible to empower each node operator =
to more easily express his free choice regarding the size of blocks he =
is willing to accept, while simultaneously ensuring that his node tracks =
consensus.

Best regards,
Peter