MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAPg+sBi=Mw7UnxG1-0-0ZTRqxrS5+28VmowyYrGP2MAvYiu_pA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADm_WcasDuBsop55ZWcTb2FvccaoREg8K032rUjgQUQhQ3g=XA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPg+sBi=Mw7UnxG1-0-0ZTRqxrS5+28VmowyYrGP2MAvYiu_pA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 16:08:29 -0500
Message-ID: <CADm_Wcae7OK7kyXkfh+7XFrc2WYsv7T1Va3_E=5om+XYrL9pOw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@gmail.com>
To: Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e01176343dbd3a705270a4eb7
Cc: Bitcoin development mailing list <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Block size: It's economics & user preparation &
 moral hazard
Precedence: list

--089e01176343dbd3a705270a4eb7
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 1:34 PM, Pieter Wuille <pieter.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
> 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

<div dir=3D"ltr">On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 1:34 PM, Pieter Wuille <span dir=
=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:pieter.wuille@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">p=
ieter.wuille@gmail.com</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><div class=3D"gmail_extra">=
<div class=3D"gmail_quote"><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margi=
n:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span>On Wed, Dec=
 16, 2015 at 3:53 PM, Jeff Garzik via bitcoin-dev<br>
&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_bla=
nk">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt; wrote:<br>
&gt; 2) If block size stays at 1M, the Bitcoin Core developer team should s=
ign a<br>
&gt; collective note stating their desire to transition to a new economic p=
olicy,<br>
&gt; that of &quot;healthy fee market&quot; and strongly urge users to exam=
ine their fee<br>
&gt; policies, wallet software, transaction volumes and other possible User=
<br>
&gt; impacting outcomes.<br>
<br>
</span>You present this as if the Bitcoin Core development team is in charg=
e<br>
of deciding the network consensus rules, and is responsible for making<br>
changes to it in order to satisfy economic demand. If that is the<br>
case, Bitcoin has failed, in my opinion.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><di=
v>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.</div><div><br></div><div>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.</div><div>=
<br></div><div>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><div><br></div><=
div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div></div></div></div>

--089e01176343dbd3a705270a4eb7--