1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
|
Return-Path: <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3AE98DE9
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 16 Dec 2015 21:11:53 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-ig0-f174.google.com (mail-ig0-f174.google.com
[209.85.213.174])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D8642141
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 16 Dec 2015 21:11:52 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-ig0-f174.google.com with SMTP id to18so67070951igc.0
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 16 Dec 2015 13:11:52 -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=yb1qVwdMh19vQyet/xUqjWV226C62q26CMvAEkgDOoU=;
b=FItR+pYyPkntxrVnRe50xi9epKn4zNMyRCLWlaUXXYXgjxHUpU7iu55HkVMgIS9S6s
p06MExpxDdvIyPxNi2pbbOVlsELGU6AZq8K6Bl46NV6YdFTI0NekR9drblpwvhUhOm7q
lNbjvZD+wvnDStTeiT1hBmb2p+xYvhN0rSP68beKW75WjKfgj45feisRNUT+noMb9mi3
hIScXok+pkM0paYUy1MUZFArSgdOrTrxBco6znQPHkYsRUUIPkJKdayE5BrAyNz1fgkL
F42iRDKenWhAarcOFxoLJOAqhDy3RRMDBKVkCnJMZfOGxwqyUml0a9210JQjW4CBXNIX
Myrw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.107.168.5 with SMTP id r5mr25666428ioe.126.1450300312319;
Wed, 16 Dec 2015 13:11:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.36.80.6 with HTTP; Wed, 16 Dec 2015 13:11:52 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CADm_Wcae7OK7kyXkfh+7XFrc2WYsv7T1Va3_E=5om+XYrL9pOw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADm_WcasDuBsop55ZWcTb2FvccaoREg8K032rUjgQUQhQ3g=XA@mail.gmail.com>
<CAPg+sBi=Mw7UnxG1-0-0ZTRqxrS5+28VmowyYrGP2MAvYiu_pA@mail.gmail.com>
<CADm_Wcae7OK7kyXkfh+7XFrc2WYsv7T1Va3_E=5om+XYrL9pOw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 22:11:52 +0100
Message-ID: <CAPg+sBimfFVea4Sorgx=DaMPVs1k1DrmTA2ZFdLFtxrqKm23-w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>
To: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM,
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 <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
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 <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 21:11:53 -0000
On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 10:08 PM, Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 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.
We are not avoiding a choice. We don't have the authority to make a choice.
> 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.
I indeed think we can communicate much better that deciding consensus
rules is not within our power.
--
Pieter
|
