Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from <jgarzik@bitpay.com>) id 1Z497V-0004Yq-W4 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sun, 14 Jun 2015 14:42:46 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of bitpay.com designates 209.85.214.172 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.214.172; envelope-from=jgarzik@bitpay.com; helo=mail-ob0-f172.google.com; Received: from mail-ob0-f172.google.com ([209.85.214.172]) by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1Z497U-0006wO-4J for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sun, 14 Jun 2015 14:42:45 +0000 Received: by obbgp2 with SMTP id gp2so49107283obb.2 for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>; Sun, 14 Jun 2015 07:42:38 -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=vdhcd+ZSQVrBk/RfELq/V68nfCqc6gEd7he6TcTbVs8=; b=MNX9cdAJ6wOuTws4EK4O4ilyZGV4zkUo6l2a1l22WtmkLiXCSaXptZk+NauEuNXwO5 isR1mcje1HSvxoyU4SdfZaijfqNmYBvagELDfm7ZLZ1EG3AkEbT2graJf1voBR2iNleO YTSosJPk52HkWSA1wR86+yfwpMmchG2Mfv19xN0WkDuZIY362C4Z3FyMdwEBb401V5Rn 5dHnTjdelrvrTeHeDvbOEY2JDE3ArHG/00NnlHne2aseSHr4pB832shIDYdn+YskeA1R p8Y87lqEsJBOgn9UrwJFv6OCtNTXdcg08jX0Cy41s71ueg2g7+rNZpNEkc+wWOga8co4 2SWA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQk9zyapG3nhRvDG6aOPBANSgZEXcgz6CaVEByGfebv7YVzBJtV5PPBDuCFc0C4zmOkT+dbN X-Received: by 10.202.83.83 with SMTP id h80mr18796755oib.56.1434292958550; Sun, 14 Jun 2015 07:42:38 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.202.108.149 with HTTP; Sun, 14 Jun 2015 07:42:17 -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> From: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@bitpay.com> Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2015 10:42:17 -0400 Message-ID: <CAJHLa0OVJq-UqL5ecdEoXgy84WV40=Ympefnzn15DBhVBjCzuw@mail.gmail.com> To: Mats Henricson <mats@henricson.se> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113b0a084c771a05187b5aec 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: 1Z497U-0006wO-4J 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 14:42:46 -0000 --001a113b0a084c771a05187b5aec Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Since you missed it, here is the suggestion again: http://gtf.org/garzik/bitcoin/BIP100-blocksizechangeproposal.pdf On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 6:06 AM, 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, fee= s > > are bid high. If software high priests choose a size limit of 32mb, > space > > 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. > Different > > users value adoption, decentralization etc. differently. > > > > The size limit is an economic policy lever that needs to be transitione= d > > -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 > governance > > problems associated with actors lobbying developers, even if a cloister= ed > > and vetted Technical Advisory Board as has been proposed. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 1:20 AM, Eric Lombrozo <elombrozo@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > >> 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 p= roblem > much > >> more generally. Using false choices doesn=E2=80=99t really help, thoug= h ;) > >> > >> - 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 f= or 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 > --=20 Jeff Garzik Bitcoin core developer and open source evangelist BitPay, Inc. https://bitpay.com/ --001a113b0a084c771a05187b5aec Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <div dir=3D"ltr">Since you missed it, here is the suggestion again:=C2=A0<a= href=3D"http://gtf.org/garzik/bitcoin/BIP100-blocksizechangeproposal.pdf">= http://gtf.org/garzik/bitcoin/BIP100-blocksizechangeproposal.pdf</a><div><b= r></div></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On = Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 6:06 AM, Mats Henricson <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href= =3D"mailto:mats@henricson.se" target=3D"_blank">mats@henricson.se</a>></= span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8e= x;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Jeff,<br> <br> with all due respect, but I've seen you saying this a few times<br> now, that this decision is oh so difficult and important.<br> <br> But this is not helpful. We all know that. Even I.<br> <br> Make a suggestion, or stay out of the debate!<br> <span class=3D"HOEnZb"><font color=3D"#888888"><br> Mats<br> </font></span><div class=3D"HOEnZb"><div class=3D"h5"><br> On 06/14/2015 07:36 AM, Jeff Garzik wrote:<br> > The choice is very real and on-point.=C2=A0 What should the block size= limit<br> > be?=C2=A0 Why?<br> ><br> > There is a large consensus that it needs increasing.=C2=A0 To what?=C2= =A0 By what<br> > factor?<br> ><br> > The size limit literally defines the fee market, the whole damn thing.= =C2=A0 If<br> > software high priests choose a size limit of 300k, space is scarce, fe= es<br> > are bid high.=C2=A0 If software high priests choose a size limit of 32= mb, space<br> > is plentiful, fees are near zero.=C2=A0 Market actors take their signa= ls<br> > accordingly.=C2=A0 Some business models boom, some business models fai= l, as a<br> > direct result of changing this unintentionally-added speedbump.=C2=A0 = Different<br> > users value adoption, decentralization etc. differently.<br> ><br> > The size limit is an economic policy lever that needs to be transition= ed<br> > -away- from software and software developers, to the free market.<br> ><br> > A simple, e.g. hard fork to 2MB or 4MB does not fix higher level gover= nance<br> > problems associated with actors lobbying developers, even if a cloiste= red<br> > and vetted Technical Advisory Board as has been proposed.<br> ><br> ><br> ><br> ><br> ><br> ><br> ><br> > On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 1:20 AM, Eric Lombrozo <<a href=3D"mailto:e= lombrozo@gmail.com">elombrozo@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br> ><br> >> I definitely think we need some voting system for metaconsensus=E2= =80=A6but if<br> >> we=E2=80=99re going to seriously consider this we should look at t= he problem much<br> >> more generally. Using false choices doesn=E2=80=99t really help, t= hough ;)<br> >><br> >> - Eric Lombrozo<br> >><br> >><br> >> On Jun 13, 2015, at 10:13 PM, Jeff Garzik <<a href=3D"mailto:jg= arzik@bitpay.com">jgarzik@bitpay.com</a>> wrote:<br> >><br> >> On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 1:08 AM, Eric Lombrozo <<a href=3D"mail= to:elombrozo@gmail.com">elombrozo@gmail.com</a>><br> >> wrote:<br> >><br> >>> 2) BIP100 has direct economic consequences=E2=80=A6and particu= larly for miners.<br> >>> It lends itself to much greater corruptibility.<br> >>><br> >>><br> >> What is the alternative?=C2=A0 Have a Chief Scientist or Technical= Advisory<br> >> Board choose what is a proper fee, what is a proper level of<br> >> decentralization, a proper growth factor?<br> >><br> >><br> >><br> ><br> ><br> ><br> ><br> </div></div><div class=3D"HOEnZb"><div class=3D"h5">> ------------------= ------------------------------------------------------------<br> ><br> ><br> ><br> > _______________________________________________<br> > Bitcoin-development mailing list<br> > <a href=3D"mailto:Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net">Bitcoin-d= evelopment@lists.sourceforge.net</a><br> > <a href=3D"https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-develo= pment" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.sourceforge.net/l= ists/listinfo/bitcoin-development</a><br> ><br> <br> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------= ---<br> _______________________________________________<br> Bitcoin-development mailing list<br> <a href=3D"mailto:Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net">Bitcoin-develo= pment@lists.sourceforge.net</a><br> <a href=3D"https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development= " rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/= listinfo/bitcoin-development</a><br> </div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear=3D"all"><div><br></div>-- <br>= <div class=3D"gmail_signature">Jeff Garzik<br>Bitcoin core developer and op= en 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> --001a113b0a084c771a05187b5aec--