Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 209.85.220.51 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=209.85.220.51; envelope-from=elombrozo@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-pa0-f51.google.com; 
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2098\))
Content-Type: multipart/signed;
	boundary="Apple-Mail=_D5CFBDF8-2FDC-4E26-B354-FDA9F82B36F7";
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
From: Eric Lombrozo <elombrozo@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAOoPuRaaA2Bi3RJCpi-vF6odSbTRwfOUi+x7csS8VQYkoWN7bw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2015 13:10:41 -0700
Message-Id: <D6AFE62D-6145-40C4-A0F6-8363AA23A84E@gmail.com>
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>
	<CAOoPuRaaA2Bi3RJCpi-vF6odSbTRwfOUi+x7csS8VQYkoWN7bw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Benjamin <benjamin.l.cordes@gmail.com>
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] User vote in blocksize through fees
Precedence: list


--Apple-Mail=_D5CFBDF8-2FDC-4E26-B354-FDA9F82B36F7
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=utf-8


> On Jun 14, 2015, at 3:34 AM, Benjamin <benjamin.l.cordes@gmail.com> =
wrote:
>=20
> "The size limit is an economic policy lever that needs to be
> transitioned -away- from software and software developers, to the free
> market."
>=20
> 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?
>=20

In addition, fees are complicated by the fact that they are used as an =
anti-spam measure for relay nodes=E2=80=A6who don=E2=80=99t see ANY =
direct compensation whatsoever for providing that service. So we really =
have two different fees being tacked on=E2=80=A6but the miners get to =
keep all of it=E2=80=A6and the relay fee is being hard coded into the =
software.

Fee calculation heuristics for wallets are already far from trivial - =
this is another issue that needs to be addressed.

- Eric Lombrozo

> On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 12:06 PM, Mats Henricson <mats@henricson.se> =
wrote:
>> Jeff,
>>=20
>> with all due respect, but I've seen you saying this a few times
>> now, that this decision is oh so difficult and important.
>>=20
>> But this is not helpful. We all know that. Even I.
>>=20
>> Make a suggestion, or stay out of the debate!
>>=20
>> Mats
>>=20
>> 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, =
fees
>>> 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.
>>>=20
>>> The size limit is an economic policy lever that needs to be =
transitioned
>>> -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 =
governance
>>> problems associated with actors lobbying developers, even if a =
cloistered
>>> 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> =
wrote:
>>>=20
>>>> 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 problem much
>>>> more generally. Using false choices doesn=E2=80=99t really help, =
though ;)
>>>>=20
>>>> - Eric Lombrozo
>>>>=20
>>>>=20
>>>> On Jun 13, 2015, at 10:13 PM, Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@bitpay.com> =
wrote:
>>>>=20
>>>> On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 1:08 AM, Eric Lombrozo =
<elombrozo@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>=20
>>>>> 2) BIP100 has direct economic consequences=E2=80=A6and =
particularly for miners.
>>>>> It lends itself to much greater corruptibility.
>>>>>=20
>>>>>=20
>>>> 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
>>> =
--------------------------------------------------------------------------=
----
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Bitcoin-development mailing list
>>> Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>>>=20
>>=20
>> =
--------------------------------------------------------------------------=
----
>> _______________________________________________
>> Bitcoin-development mailing list
>> Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>=20
> =
--------------------------------------------------------------------------=
----
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development


--Apple-Mail=_D5CFBDF8-2FDC-4E26-B354-FDA9F82B36F7
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename=signature.asc
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature;
	name=signature.asc
Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org
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=kr99
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--Apple-Mail=_D5CFBDF8-2FDC-4E26-B354-FDA9F82B36F7--