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
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
|
Return-Path: <jgarzik@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 981EF7A6
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 22 Jul 2015 18:38:54 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-ig0-f178.google.com (mail-ig0-f178.google.com
[209.85.213.178])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 24572112
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 22 Jul 2015 18:38:54 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by igbpg9 with SMTP id pg9so139631708igb.0
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 22 Jul 2015 11:38:53 -0700 (PDT)
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=Ytm0+pQxjRsUJ2wSw7L8RZcH/r91JJLAmLl1J5BgJ7I=;
b=ooG+IaTCg12tj/Cl32+yRlCshdzbr/Bfbt00SDrNmdNA7tp9iB5TJyeyCnrAxiE84d
F0x4nWL6Vmyjb8IThhLkK50YdR+Tg868m/KDDEj5o72OjAO8aYK71+17wFzMnMt2m3KL
MyMmfh5A3z9E4qWN1fVDPnQDR0bF29LlufVSWAquweL7/bmcRyhZ8BpmpNdsUmyK+PVv
R7Sf5HphLUH9jZbJybk6dRmeKFreaPozBTA1ftQ/EhKlhT8hFBEqpfIDU84CyIlK9FZY
6kgNCzrliJKUga4BS+E1CfUpsDmrUvdvo/V4As//9a5FipcQp1070R9bCg/VI/f0q04k
CP4g==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.50.59.211 with SMTP id b19mr36435276igr.42.1437589497896;
Wed, 22 Jul 2015 11:24:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.79.38.79 with HTTP; Wed, 22 Jul 2015 11:24:57 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAPWm=eW8RgrG1CMEAMN4GeiMjZecFvNtZB_Y4rZNeofWSD0=Wg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPg+sBgs-ouEMu=LOVCmOyCGwfM1Ygxooz0shyvAuHDGGZYfJw@mail.gmail.com>
<CAPg+sBgugLSVEwDLXhgey86_rM2fTjGWXFuXsiZioJKCZiHiNg@mail.gmail.com>
<CADm_WcbnQQGZoQ92twfUvbzqGwu__xLn+BYOkHPZY_YT1pFrbA@mail.gmail.com>
<CAPWm=eW8RgrG1CMEAMN4GeiMjZecFvNtZB_Y4rZNeofWSD0=Wg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 11:24:57 -0700
Message-ID: <CADm_WcYCUHs9Qe_T6WJOCUSK6stXYD8v6z5JcGHfRMURoOSFTA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@gmail.com>
To: Alex Morcos <morcos@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bd757585ae646051b7ae3e2
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-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.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 <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, 22 Jul 2015 18:38:54 -0000
--047d7bd757585ae646051b7ae3e2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 11:03 AM, Alex Morcos <morcos@gmail.com> wrote:
> Over the last 6 years there may not have been fee pressure, but certainly
> there was the expectation that it was going to happen. Look at all the
> work that has been put into fee estimation, why do that work if the
> expectation was there would be no fee pressure?
>
There is a vast difference between what software developers have been
chattering about in the background versus what the users actually
experience in the field.
To the user, talk of a fee market is equivalent to talk about block size -
various opinions are tossed about, but it doesn't really impact them. Fees
have been low for 6 years.
We see this with the actual data - no fee pressure on average for the
entirety of bitcoin's history. We see this with the recent stress tests,
which exposed dumb wallet behavior WRT fees. Users -and software- had the
expectation
Remember, this is not a judgement on whether or not fee market/pressure
should exist. It is simply a factual observation that users/market have
not experienced this new economic policy.
That opens the question - *why now?* Why make bitcoin growth more
expensive at this time in its young life? Many smart people would prefer
that bitcoin continue to grow, rather than making the system more expensive
to use right now.
Choosing "let a fee market develop" -- *today* -- is picking economic
sides, picking winners & losers in the market.
This new policy should be debated and consensus achieved, not simply rolled
out by fiat without user notification.
Otherwise it is engaging in precisely the economic wizardry that this
thread opened with decrying.
Just like block size, there are multiple sides to the fee market debate.
However, Bitcoin Core has (unfortunately) outsized decision making power in
that simply avoiding progress on block size limit will achieve the "let a
fee market develop" economic policy change. Ironic but true - sitting
around and doing nothing dumps users into a new economic policy.
--047d7bd757585ae646051b7ae3e2
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr">On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 11:03 AM, Alex Morcos <span dir=3D=
"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:morcos@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">morcos@gmai=
l.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gma=
il_quote"><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;bord=
er-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div>Over the las=
t 6 years there may not have been fee pressure, but certainly there was the=
expectation that it was going to happen.=C2=A0 Look at all the work that h=
as been put into fee estimation, why do that work if the expectation was th=
ere would be no fee pressure?</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>T=
here is a vast difference between what software developers have been chatte=
ring about in the background versus what the users actually experience in t=
he field.</div><div><br></div><div>To the user, talk of a fee market is equ=
ivalent to talk about block size - various opinions are tossed about, but i=
t doesn't really impact them.=C2=A0 Fees have been low for 6 years.</di=
v><div><br></div><div>We see this with the actual data - no fee pressure on=
average for the entirety of bitcoin's history.=C2=A0 We see this with =
the recent stress tests, which exposed dumb wallet behavior WRT fees. =C2=
=A0 Users -and software- had the expectation=C2=A0</div><div><br></div><div=
>Remember, this is not a judgement on whether or not fee market/pressure sh=
ould exist.=C2=A0 It is simply a factual observation that users/market have=
not experienced this new economic policy.</div><div><br></div><div>That op=
ens the question - <b>why now?</b> =C2=A0 Why make bitcoin growth more expe=
nsive at this time in its young life?=C2=A0 Many smart people would prefer =
that bitcoin continue to grow, rather than making the system more expensive=
to use right now.</div><div><br></div><div>Choosing "let a fee market=
develop" -- <i>today</i>=C2=A0-- is picking economic sides, picking w=
inners & losers in the market.</div><div><br></div><div>This new policy=
should be debated and consensus achieved, not simply rolled out by fiat wi=
thout user notification.</div><div><br></div><div>Otherwise it is engaging =
in precisely the economic wizardry that this thread opened with decrying.</=
div><div><br></div><div>Just like block size, there are multiple sides to t=
he fee market debate.=C2=A0 However, Bitcoin Core has (unfortunately) outsi=
zed decision making power in that simply avoiding progress on block size li=
mit will achieve the "let a fee market develop" economic policy c=
hange.=C2=A0 Ironic but true - sitting around and doing nothing dumps users=
into a new economic policy.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div></div></div=
></div>
--047d7bd757585ae646051b7ae3e2--
|
