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
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
|
Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <benjamin.l.cordes@gmail.com>) id 1Z45Eu-0006LH-GZ
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sun, 14 Jun 2015 10:34:08 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.214.182 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.214.182;
envelope-from=benjamin.l.cordes@gmail.com;
helo=mail-ob0-f182.google.com;
Received: from mail-ob0-f182.google.com ([209.85.214.182])
by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1Z45Es-0000rV-N2
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sun, 14 Jun 2015 10:34:08 +0000
Received: by obbgp2 with SMTP id gp2so47265484obb.2
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Sun, 14 Jun 2015 03:34:01 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.60.178.33 with SMTP id cv1mr19229492oec.11.1434278041257;
Sun, 14 Jun 2015 03:34:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.202.49.205 with HTTP; Sun, 14 Jun 2015 03:34:01 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <557D5239.1070105@henricson.se>
References: <20150612181153.GB19199@muck>
<CAJN5wHVj=KfQ3_KYOKee9uq4LNPwQ7x5nGuKDHEMUqGF4LSDLg@mail.gmail.com>
<CAFzgq-y5xBSXexVi0mJw_w89R2_AHJCgmj=gLN4CK_-YaO4-eg@mail.gmail.com>
<3BB36FC7-9212-42A1-A756-A66929C15D4F@gmail.com>
<CAJHLa0Oh0wm_1SynFdCu+WkVD-gTGk0ZUNgQV0GVj0-3zL=zzw@mail.gmail.com>
<04527D50-0118-4E74-8226-3E29B29CC7D8@gmail.com>
<CAJHLa0NrNqECvqhJWNX=rt3-h4U3jwFWoMCrcbyC6hUT5EqWbw@mail.gmail.com>
<557D5239.1070105@henricson.se>
Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2015 12:34:01 +0200
Message-ID: <CAOoPuRaaA2Bi3RJCpi-vF6odSbTRwfOUi+x7csS8VQYkoWN7bw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Benjamin <benjamin.l.cordes@gmail.com>
To: Mats Henricson <mats@henricson.se>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
-1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for
sender-domain
0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
(benjamin.l.cordes[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
-0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from
author's domain
0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature,
not necessarily valid
-0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
X-Headers-End: 1Z45Es-0000rV-N2
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] User vote in blocksize through fees
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2015 10:34:08 -0000
"The size limit is an economic policy lever that needs to be
transitioned -away- from software and software developers, to the free
market."
Exactly right. Bitcoin does not have a free market for fee though, and
literally all the discussion so far has neglected some fundamental
aspect of this, as you described. It's not at all a "technical" or
"engineering" decision. It's the question of how to potentially
re-design a fundamental part of Bitcoin, and the proposals so far
don't address this. What is the price of the scarce resource of the
blockchain and the mechanism to decide on price, once the subsidy runs
out?
On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 12:06 PM, Mats Henricson <mats@henricson.se> wrote:
> Jeff,
>
> with all due respect, but I've seen you saying this a few times
> now, that this decision is oh so difficult and important.
>
> But this is not helpful. We all know that. Even I.
>
> Make a suggestion, or stay out of the debate!
>
> Mats
>
> On 06/14/2015 07:36 AM, Jeff Garzik wrote:
>> The choice is very real and on-point. What should the block size limit
>> be? Why?
>>
>> There is a large consensus that it needs increasing. To what? By what
>> factor?
>>
>> The size limit literally defines the fee market, the whole damn thing. =
If
>> software high priests choose a size limit of 300k, space is scarce, fees
>> are bid high. If software high priests choose a size limit of 32mb, spa=
ce
>> is plentiful, fees are near zero. Market actors take their signals
>> accordingly. Some business models boom, some business models fail, as a
>> direct result of changing this unintentionally-added speedbump. Differe=
nt
>> users value adoption, decentralization etc. differently.
>>
>> The size limit is an economic policy lever that needs to be transitioned
>> -away- from software and software developers, to the free market.
>>
>> A simple, e.g. hard fork to 2MB or 4MB does not fix higher level governa=
nce
>> problems associated with actors lobbying developers, even if a cloistere=
d
>> and vetted Technical Advisory Board as has been proposed.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 1:20 AM, Eric Lombrozo <elombrozo@gmail.com> wro=
te:
>>
>>> I definitely think we need some voting system for metaconsensus=E2=80=
=A6but if
>>> we=E2=80=99re going to seriously consider this we should look at the pr=
oblem much
>>> more generally. Using false choices doesn=E2=80=99t really help, though=
;)
>>>
>>> - Eric Lombrozo
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jun 13, 2015, at 10:13 PM, Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@bitpay.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 1:08 AM, Eric Lombrozo <elombrozo@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> 2) BIP100 has direct economic consequences=E2=80=A6and particularly fo=
r miners.
>>>> It lends itself to much greater corruptibility.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> What is the alternative? Have a Chief Scientist or Technical Advisory
>>> Board choose what is a proper fee, what is a proper level of
>>> decentralization, a proper growth factor?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------=
------
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Bitcoin-development mailing list
>> Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-----
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
|
