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 ) id 1YshTv-0006NC-PM for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 14 May 2015 00:58:35 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.214.182 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.214.182; envelope-from=pieter.wuille@gmail.com; helo=mail-ob0-f182.google.com; Received: from mail-ob0-f182.google.com ([209.85.214.182]) by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1YshTu-0001oH-1h for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 14 May 2015 00:58:35 +0000 Received: by obfe9 with SMTP id e9so42761184obf.1 for ; Wed, 13 May 2015 17:58:28 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.182.16.161 with SMTP id h1mr1333434obd.49.1431565108652; Wed, 13 May 2015 17:58:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.60.94.36 with HTTP; Wed, 13 May 2015 17:58:28 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <5550D8BE.6070207@electrum.org> Date: Wed, 13 May 2015 17:58:28 -0700 Message-ID: From: Pieter Wuille To: Aaron Voisine Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c2fbe0c6312505160039fe 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 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (pieter.wuille[at]gmail.com) -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: 1YshTu-0001oH-1h Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Long-term mining incentives X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 14 May 2015 00:58:35 -0000 --001a11c2fbe0c6312505160039fe Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 5:48 PM, Aaron Voisine wrote: > We have $3billion plus of value in this system to defend. The safe, > conservative course is to increase the block size. Miners already have an > incentive to find ways to encourage higher fees and we can help them with > standard recommended propagation rules and hybrid priority/fee transaction > selection for blocks that increases confirmation delays for low fee > transactions. > You may find that the most economical solution, but I can't understand how you can call it conservative. Suggesting a hard fork is betting the survival of the entire ecosystem on the bet that everyone will agree with and upgrade to new suggested software before a flag date. -- Pieter --001a11c2fbe0c6312505160039fe Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 5:48 PM, Aaron Voisine <voisine= @gmail.com> wrote:
We have $3billion plus = of value in this system to defend. The safe, conservative course is to incr= ease the block size. Miners already have an incentive to find ways to encou= rage higher fees =A0and we can help them with standard recommended propagat= ion rules and hybrid priority/fee transaction selection for blocks that inc= reases confirmation delays for low fee transactions.=

You may find that the mos= t economical solution, but I can't understand how you can call it conse= rvative.

Suggesting a hard fork is betting the survival o= f the entire ecosystem on the bet that everyone will agree with and upgrade= to new suggested software before a flag date.

--
Pie= ter

--001a11c2fbe0c6312505160039fe--