+Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193]

+ helo=mx.sourceforge.net)

+ by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)

+ (envelope-from <mats@henricson.se>) id 1Z44od-0003vw-RQ

+ for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;

+ Sun, 14 Jun 2015 10:06:59 +0000

+X-ACL-Warn:

+Received: from postman.datakultur.com ([213.212.33.189])

+ by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)

+ id 1Z44ob-000117-PY for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;

+ Sun, 14 Jun 2015 10:06:59 +0000

+Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])

+ by postman.datakultur.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A575100AEBC

+ for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;

+ Sun, 14 Jun 2015 12:06:51 +0200 (CEST)

+X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at postman.datakultur.com

+Received: from postman.datakultur.com ([127.0.0.1])

+ by localhost (postman.datakultur.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new,

+ port 10024) with ESMTP id A81jcUTnDho3

+ for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;

+ Sun, 14 Jun 2015 12:06:49 +0200 (CEST)

+Received: from [192.168.0.11] (c80-216-178-136.bredband.comhem.se

+ [80.216.178.136])

+ (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits))

+ (No client certificate requested)

+ by postman.datakultur.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8CFF5100AEA6

+ for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;

+ Sun, 14 Jun 2015 12:06:49 +0200 (CEST)

+Message-ID: <557D5239.1070105@henricson.se>

+Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2015 12:06:49 +0200

+From: Mats Henricson <mats@henricson.se>

+User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64;

+ rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.5.0

+MIME-Version: 1.0

+To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net

+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>

+In-Reply-To: <CAJHLa0NrNqECvqhJWNX=rt3-h4U3jwFWoMCrcbyC6hUT5EqWbw@mail.gmail.com>

+Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252

+Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

+X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)

+X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.

+ See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.

+X-Headers-End: 1Z44ob-000117-PY

+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 10:06:59 -0000

+

+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?

+>=20

+> There is a large consensus that it needs increasing. To what? By what

+> factor?

+>=20

+> 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, fee=

+s

+> are bid high. If software high priests choose a size limit of 32mb, sp=

+ace

+> 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. Differ=

+ent

+> users value adoption, decentralization etc. differently.

+>=20

+> The size limit is an economic policy lever that needs to be transitione=

+d

+> -away- from software and software developers, to the free market.

+>=20

+> A simple, e.g. hard fork to 2MB or 4MB does not fix higher level govern=

+ance

+> problems associated with actors lobbying developers, even if a cloister=

+ed

+> and vetted Technical Advisory Board as has been proposed.

+>=20

+>=20

+>=20

+>=20

+>=20

+>=20

+>=20

+> On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 1:20 AM, Eric Lombrozo <elombrozo@gmail.com> wr=

+ote:

+>=20

+>> I definitely think we need some voting system for metaconsensus=85but =

+if

+>> we=92re going to seriously consider this we should look at the problem=

+ much

+>> more generally. Using false choices doesn=92t 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=85and particularly for min=

+ers.

+>>> 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?

+>>

+>>

+>>

+>=20

+>=20

+>=20

+>=20

+> -----------------------------------------------------------------------=

+-------

+>=20

+>=20

+>=20

+> _______________________________________________

+> Bitcoin-development mailing list

+> Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net

+> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development

+>=20

+

+