Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.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; 
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CANEZrP3wGWHdz+ut6pvke5TJJsc1rTFt8sn2KziX35oL5LAsyg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <554A91BE.6060105@bluematt.me>
	<CANEZrP3wGWHdz+ut6pvke5TJJsc1rTFt8sn2KziX35oL5LAsyg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@bitpay.com>
Date: Thu, 7 May 2015 10:04:21 -0400
Message-ID: <CAJHLa0Mr6aQcVRKtidc+qVR7-esriyp5kzAw1LMHHwOcXhhG+Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0149ce38a731e905157e64ae
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Block Size Increase
Precedence: list

--089e0149ce38a731e905157e64ae
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

I have a lot more written down, a WIP; here are the highlights.

- The 1MB limit is an ancient anti-spam limit, and needs to go.

- The 1MB limit is economically entrenched at this point, and cannot be
removed at a whim.

- This is a major change to the economics of a $3.2B system.  This change
picks winners and losers.  There is attendant moral hazard.

- The core dev team is not and should not be an FOMC.

- The bar for "major economic change to a $3.2B system" should necessarily
be high.  In the more boring world of investments, this would accompanied
by Due Diligence including but not limited to projections for success,
failure scenarios, upside risks and downside risks.  Projections and
fact-based simulations.

- There are significant disruption risks on the pro (change it) and con
(keep 1MB) sides of the debate.

- People are privately lobbying Gavin for this.  That is the wrong way to
go.   I have pushed for a more public debate, and public endorsements (or
condemnations) from major miners, merchants, payment processors,
stackholders, ...   It is unfair to criticize Gavin to doing this.

--089e0149ce38a731e905157e64ae
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div><div><div><div>I have a lot more written down, a WIP;=
 here are the highlights.<br><br></div>- The 1MB limit is an ancient anti-s=
pam limit, and needs to go.<br><br></div><div>- The 1MB limit is economical=
ly entrenched at this point, and cannot be removed at a whim.<br></div><div=
><br></div>- This is a major change to the economics of a $3.2B system.=C2=
=A0 This change picks winners and losers.=C2=A0 There is attendant moral ha=
zard.<br><br></div><div>- The core dev team is not and should not be an FOM=
C.<br></div><div><br></div>- The bar for &quot;major economic change to a $=
3.2B system&quot; should necessarily be high.=C2=A0 In the more boring worl=
d of investments, this would accompanied by Due Diligence including but not=
 limited to projections for success, failure scenarios, upside risks and do=
wnside risks.=C2=A0 Projections and fact-based simulations.<br></div><br><d=
iv>- There are significant disruption risks on the pro (change it) and con =
(keep 1MB) sides of the debate.<br></div><div><br></div>-
 People are privately lobbying Gavin for this.=C2=A0 That is the wrong way =
to
 go.=C2=A0=C2=A0 I have pushed for a more public debate, and public endorse=
ments=20
(or condemnations) from major miners, merchants, payment processors,=20
stackholders, ...=C2=A0=C2=A0 It is unfair to criticize Gavin to doing this=
.<br><br><br><br><div><br></div></div>

--089e0149ce38a731e905157e64ae--