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
|
Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <jgarzik@bitpay.com>) id 1YqNqQ-0001BO-FC
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Thu, 07 May 2015 15:36:14 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of bitpay.com
designates 209.85.218.43 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.218.43; envelope-from=jgarzik@bitpay.com;
helo=mail-oi0-f43.google.com;
Received: from mail-oi0-f43.google.com ([209.85.218.43])
by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1YqNqP-0005gz-Ea
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Thu, 07 May 2015 15:36:14 +0000
Received: by oift201 with SMTP id t201so36473461oif.3
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Thu, 07 May 2015 08:36:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date
:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type;
bh=+1fMBIftiAUcmYcCObONDFim4ygeyEWQucSOf20b0BI=;
b=bx2iWuhRNq2EfCqboEO2koXpsbCHbbMUJJDc60PdkstdgyAeqJyy6n38wVWLdA3sYl
82SgR3nVydcDgXsFFm/caegStCEiV+aNiwyVN/xQEsd6nHtQ4UO8cUymKZjIvBGSB3sJ
EKYeu0nxYUr2aeVDJbZcdSseGMzYqCzEgsgEvc89VN6DSHICY4QrSjJ9OeH2JNwnCDdK
4Y5RAzkLRx+AlUg1lLW1FnH34zplgiE3yRSdapgkpo3CjQhL1Gex2oberrjNYF2HYgTU
4tqavGjtmNj1Mj9jLsNzFUhDthod5494svIcBRWSpKFEUoenEh5yLtHqaoSvw2xGkGDY
NoxQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnI/Z2ZZ31wvbcx1Kkl/ioqffDqcUnHgWI7ygVPvvs8llZeiQjH6EjirIZcR7KVKy/lLa5j
X-Received: by 10.60.176.33 with SMTP id cf1mr2103041oec.24.1431012968038;
Thu, 07 May 2015 08:36:08 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.202.108.149 with HTTP; Thu, 7 May 2015 08:35:47 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CANEZrP0bmh5braGO5OKTNJU9VC_9=_1RDqHMx=aJBxT1w-q8oA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <554A91BE.6060105@bluematt.me>
<CANEZrP3wGWHdz+ut6pvke5TJJsc1rTFt8sn2KziX35oL5LAsyg@mail.gmail.com>
<CABm2gDpDvk2VsQ+mJ-BoeBKmvu9jBXNujZEFKuCStRNjFL6VOA@mail.gmail.com>
<CANEZrP2zAGCCBhNa4=9yw+A_Dn5o4SQXoPTE_qcJzZ1dFuF2tw@mail.gmail.com>
<CABm2gDqd6iHRUDKZWWTudcC1QkYa+rCuHjz7pMC2K1Db8wpgfA@mail.gmail.com>
<CANEZrP1CU0kB0vXeXUX1L8byaT-Zf2xg+3N+GeNthi_i6bn1qw@mail.gmail.com>
<CABsx9T2Nxvr4fqREMw3_LXftzsxrUAR1+9sVMa8_EpTnH1nN1Q@mail.gmail.com>
<CAPWm=eUFe7dKJCLeNACZ4n9vw0Xj9rHVM_RRLSczGXNU-ShR2w@mail.gmail.com>
<CANEZrP1tCda9EbYgYu5QHN8ZgBCtGP7zRiDaXnq-rWU0ZHR9NQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CAJHLa0Nrp4QEQqrBu6Tb+dohxX2VhWKMnO40xscZF1OJdfPF-A@mail.gmail.com>
<CANEZrP0bmh5braGO5OKTNJU9VC_9=_1RDqHMx=aJBxT1w-q8oA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@bitpay.com>
Date: Thu, 7 May 2015 11:35:47 -0400
Message-ID: <CAJHLa0O28N+pKuqaZOvgCV8+TQVqkkOUxUMbSGEta+2MkZjZsA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e01176281a11a6d05157fabf6
X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/)
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 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
-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: 1YqNqP-0005gz-Ea
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Block Size Increase
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: Thu, 07 May 2015 15:36:14 -0000
--089e01176281a11a6d05157fabf6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Yes - but you must recognize that is precisely 50% of the picture.
Others have made different assumptions - taking the [1MB-constrained]
market *as it exists today*, rather than in some projected future.
Raising the block size limit then becomes a *human decision* to favor some
users over others, a *human decision* to prevent an active and competitive
free fee market developing at 1MB, a *human decision* to keep transaction
fees low to incentivize bitcoin adoption, a *human decision* to value
adoption over decentralization.
These statements are not value judgements - not saying you are wrong -
these are observations of some rather huge, relevant blind spots in this
debate.
On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 11:29 AM, Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net> wrote:
> It is a trivial *code* change. It is not a trivial change to the
>> economics of a $3.2B system.
>>
>
> Hmm - again I'd argue the opposite.
>
> Up until now Bitcoin has been unconstrained by the hard block size limit.
>
> If we raise it, Bitcoin will continue to be unconstrained by it. That's
> the default "continue as we are" position.
>
> If it's not raised, then ....... well, then we're in new territory
> entirely. Businesses built on the assumption that Bitcoin could become
> popular will suddenly have their basic assumptions invalidated. Users will
> leave. The technical code change would be zero, but the economic change
> would be significant.
>
--
Jeff Garzik
Bitcoin core developer and open source evangelist
BitPay, Inc. https://bitpay.com/
--089e01176281a11a6d05157fabf6
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr"><div><div><div>Yes - but you must recognize that is precis=
ely 50% of the picture.<br><br></div>Others have made different assumptions=
- taking the [1MB-constrained] market <i>as it exists today</i>, rather th=
an in some projected future.<br><br></div>Raising the block size limit then=
becomes a <i>human decision</i> to favor some users over others, a <i>huma=
n decision</i> to prevent an active and competitive free fee market develop=
ing at 1MB, a <i>human decision</i> to keep transaction fees low to incenti=
vize bitcoin adoption, a <i>human decision</i> to value adoption over decen=
tralization.<br><br></div>These statements are not value judgements - not s=
aying you are wrong - these are observations of some rather huge, relevant =
blind spots in this debate.<br><br><br><div><br><div><br></div></div></div>=
<div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Thu, May 7, 20=
15 at 11:29 AM, Mike Hearn <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:mike@pla=
n99.net" target=3D"_blank">mike@plan99.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockq=
uote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc =
solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div cl=
ass=3D"gmail_quote"><span class=3D""><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" styl=
e=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div di=
r=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div>It is =
a trivial <i>code</i> change.=C2=A0 It is not a trivial change to the econo=
mics of a $3.2B system.</div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div>=
</span><div>Hmm - again I'd argue the opposite.</div><div><br></div><di=
v>Up until now Bitcoin has been unconstrained by the hard block size limit.=
</div><div><br></div><div>If we raise it, Bitcoin will continue to be uncon=
strained by it. That's the default "continue as we are" posit=
ion.</div><div><br></div><div>If it's not raised, then ....... well, th=
en we're in new territory entirely. Businesses built on the assumption =
that Bitcoin could become popular will suddenly have their basic assumption=
s invalidated. Users will leave. The technical code change would be zero, b=
ut the economic change would be significant.</div></div></div></div>
</blockquote></div><br><br clear=3D"all"><br>-- <br><div class=3D"gmail_sig=
nature">Jeff Garzik<br>Bitcoin core developer and open source evangelist<br=
>BitPay, Inc. =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0<a href=3D"https://bitpay.com/" target=3D=
"_blank">https://bitpay.com/</a></div>
</div>
--089e01176281a11a6d05157fabf6--
|
