Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DB126F1D for ; Wed, 16 Dec 2015 21:08:30 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-ig0-f179.google.com (mail-ig0-f179.google.com [209.85.213.179]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 44051148 for ; Wed, 16 Dec 2015 21:08:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ig0-f179.google.com with SMTP id to4so84162793igc.0 for ; Wed, 16 Dec 2015 13:08:30 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=rfMyoEGKYnaMOAxBqege4rRqKarLEKpRlpAJCQKuCaw=; b=kach7HakTWnN2gx9nUAyofzfg6Vb0ftqw0j3Xs45Wp40h4Iea5+ppKRM9eV8ODqX/O NinH+/fOeAJY2tu+EidtaiUNKHM7Ud8o+9Ug9tQf1iAHLpUbZ3BXlwIMHFJH4VvvZcAj fH+9F7WQEvaV3WN+SUJBywObaG0fP7VacN+QnChd8xIhbjizJvsy8YnqGni0jfWFF70A nro518G7L82ZRERnxBY7JkhOcTffk5JRlivQYjZH/OjGJe36Tah4dLkOz+X2pO5s2O7u eF3A01X8iKGPvuPohticK67pyij4RqnwfHnzO0jJthSY/nlLIsTs0A7rg+/rilnN3fbl KgBg== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.50.36.105 with SMTP id p9mr13334635igj.54.1450300109735; Wed, 16 Dec 2015 13:08:29 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.79.8.198 with HTTP; Wed, 16 Dec 2015 13:08:29 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 16:08:29 -0500 Message-ID: From: Jeff Garzik To: Pieter Wuille Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e01176343dbd3a705270a4eb7 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,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 Cc: Bitcoin development mailing list Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Block size: It's economics & user preparation & moral hazard 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: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 21:08:31 -0000 --089e01176343dbd3a705270a4eb7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 1:34 PM, Pieter Wuille wrote: > On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 3:53 PM, Jeff Garzik via bitcoin-dev > wrote: > > 2) If block size stays at 1M, the Bitcoin Core developer team should > sign a > > collective note stating their desire to transition to a new economic > policy, > > that of "healthy fee market" and strongly urge users to examine their fee > > policies, wallet software, transaction volumes and other possible User > > impacting outcomes. > > You present this as if the Bitcoin Core development team is in charge > of deciding the network consensus rules, and is responsible for making > changes to it in order to satisfy economic demand. If that is the > case, Bitcoin has failed, in my opinion. > This circles back to Problem #1: Avoidance of a choice is a still a choice - failing to ACK a MAX_BLOCK_SIZE increase still creates very real Economic Change Event risk. And #3: If the likely predicted course is that Bitcoin Core will not accept a protocol change changing MAX_BLOCK_SIZE via hard fork in the short term, the core dev team should communicate that position clearly to users and media. Hitting a Fee Event is market changing, potentially reshuffling economic actors to a notable degree. Maintaining a short term economic policy of fixed 1M supply in the face of rising transaction volume carries risks that should be analyzed and communicated. --089e01176343dbd3a705270a4eb7 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 1:34 PM, Pieter Wuille <p= ieter.wuille@gmail.com> wrote:
=
On Wed, Dec= 16, 2015 at 3:53 PM, Jeff Garzik via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> 2) If block size stays at 1M, the Bitcoin Core developer team should s= ign a
> collective note stating their desire to transition to a new economic p= olicy,
> that of "healthy fee market" and strongly urge users to exam= ine their fee
> policies, wallet software, transaction volumes and other possible User=
> impacting outcomes.

You present this as if the Bitcoin Core development team is in charg= e
of deciding the network consensus rules, and is responsible for making
changes to it in order to satisfy economic demand. If that is the
case, Bitcoin has failed, in my opinion.

This circles back to Problem #1: =C2=A0 Avoidance of a choice is a still = a choice - failing to ACK a MAX_BLOCK_SIZE increase still creates very real= Economic Change Event risk.

And #3: =C2=A0If the = likely predicted course is that Bitcoin Core will not accept a protocol cha= nge changing MAX_BLOCK_SIZE via hard fork in the short term, the core dev t= eam should communicate that position clearly to users and media.
=
Hitting a Fee Event is market changing, potentially reshuffl= ing economic actors to a notable degree.=C2=A0 Maintaining a short term eco= nomic policy of fixed 1M supply in the face of rising transaction volume ca= rries risks that should be analyzed and communicated.

<= div>


--089e01176343dbd3a705270a4eb7--