Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of bitpay.com
	designates 209.85.218.43 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=209.85.218.43; envelope-from=jgarzik@bitpay.com;
	helo=mail-oi0-f43.google.com; 
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CANEZrP0bmh5braGO5OKTNJU9VC_9=_1RDqHMx=aJBxT1w-q8oA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <554A91BE.6060105@bluematt.me>
	<CANEZrP3wGWHdz+ut6pvke5TJJsc1rTFt8sn2KziX35oL5LAsyg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABm2gDpDvk2VsQ+mJ-BoeBKmvu9jBXNujZEFKuCStRNjFL6VOA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CANEZrP2zAGCCBhNa4=9yw+A_Dn5o4SQXoPTE_qcJzZ1dFuF2tw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABm2gDqd6iHRUDKZWWTudcC1QkYa+rCuHjz7pMC2K1Db8wpgfA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CANEZrP1CU0kB0vXeXUX1L8byaT-Zf2xg+3N+GeNthi_i6bn1qw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABsx9T2Nxvr4fqREMw3_LXftzsxrUAR1+9sVMa8_EpTnH1nN1Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPWm=eUFe7dKJCLeNACZ4n9vw0Xj9rHVM_RRLSczGXNU-ShR2w@mail.gmail.com>
	<CANEZrP1tCda9EbYgYu5QHN8ZgBCtGP7zRiDaXnq-rWU0ZHR9NQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAJHLa0Nrp4QEQqrBu6Tb+dohxX2VhWKMnO40xscZF1OJdfPF-A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CANEZrP0bmh5braGO5OKTNJU9VC_9=_1RDqHMx=aJBxT1w-q8oA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@bitpay.com>
Date: Thu, 7 May 2015 11:35:47 -0400
Message-ID: <CAJHLa0O28N+pKuqaZOvgCV8+TQVqkkOUxUMbSGEta+2MkZjZsA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e01176281a11a6d05157fabf6
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Block Size Increase
Precedence: list

--089e01176281a11a6d05157fabf6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

Yes - but you must recognize that is precisely 50% of the picture.

Others have made different assumptions - taking the [1MB-constrained]
market *as it exists today*, rather than in some projected future.

Raising the block size limit then becomes a *human decision* to favor some
users over others, a *human decision* to prevent an active and competitive
free fee market developing at 1MB, a *human decision* to keep transaction
fees low to incentivize bitcoin adoption, a *human decision* to value
adoption over decentralization.

These statements are not value judgements - not saying you are wrong -
these are observations of some rather huge, relevant blind spots in this
debate.


On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 11:29 AM, Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net> wrote:

> It is a trivial *code* change.  It is not a trivial change to the
>> economics of a $3.2B system.
>>
>
> Hmm - again I'd argue the opposite.
>
> Up until now Bitcoin has been unconstrained by the hard block size limit.
>
> If we raise it, Bitcoin will continue to be unconstrained by it. That's
> the default "continue as we are" position.
>
> If it's not raised, then ....... well, then we're in new territory
> entirely. Businesses built on the assumption that Bitcoin could become
> popular will suddenly have their basic assumptions invalidated. Users will
> leave. The technical code change would be zero, but the economic change
> would be significant.
>


-- 
Jeff Garzik
Bitcoin core developer and open source evangelist
BitPay, Inc.      https://bitpay.com/

--089e01176281a11a6d05157fabf6
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div><div><div>Yes - but you must recognize that is precis=
ely 50% of the picture.<br><br></div>Others have made different assumptions=
 - taking the [1MB-constrained] market <i>as it exists today</i>, rather th=
an in some projected future.<br><br></div>Raising the block size limit then=
 becomes a <i>human decision</i> to favor some users over others, a <i>huma=
n decision</i> to prevent an active and competitive free fee market develop=
ing at 1MB, a <i>human decision</i> to keep transaction fees low to incenti=
vize bitcoin adoption, a <i>human decision</i> to value adoption over decen=
tralization.<br><br></div>These statements are not value judgements - not s=
aying you are wrong - these are observations of some rather huge, relevant =
blind spots in this debate.<br><br><br><div><br><div><br></div></div></div>=
<div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Thu, May 7, 20=
15 at 11:29 AM, Mike Hearn <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:mike@pla=
n99.net" target=3D"_blank">mike@plan99.net</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockq=
uote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc =
solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div cl=
ass=3D"gmail_quote"><span class=3D""><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" styl=
e=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div di=
r=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div>It is =
a trivial <i>code</i> change.=C2=A0 It is not a trivial change to the econo=
mics of a $3.2B system.</div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div>=
</span><div>Hmm - again I&#39;d argue the opposite.</div><div><br></div><di=
v>Up until now Bitcoin has been unconstrained by the hard block size limit.=
</div><div><br></div><div>If we raise it, Bitcoin will continue to be uncon=
strained by it. That&#39;s the default &quot;continue as we are&quot; posit=
ion.</div><div><br></div><div>If it&#39;s not raised, then ....... well, th=
en we&#39;re in new territory entirely. Businesses built on the assumption =
that Bitcoin could become popular will suddenly have their basic assumption=
s invalidated. Users will leave. The technical code change would be zero, b=
ut the economic change would be significant.</div></div></div></div>
</blockquote></div><br><br clear=3D"all"><br>-- <br><div class=3D"gmail_sig=
nature">Jeff Garzik<br>Bitcoin core developer and open 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>

--089e01176281a11a6d05157fabf6--