MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CANEZrP33GCiZHK1GV2Qt_R_AHK6SEjybGPtmORjqgvQ9MiYVZQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <55828737.6000007@riseup.net>
	<CABm2gDoa7KxsgvREo3yiNjfd6AeayqAqkjMe2rvX8yyxR_ddcA@mail.gmail.com>
	<55831CAB.2080303@jrn.me.uk> <1867667.WXWC1C9quc@crushinator>
	<CAOG=w-scXm-46sp2NgR2UUp20R5ujuaAzW-jU_Owh20C4Xc=9A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAJHLa0Mhnma8_ys2ckEA+dLT-EWnqO4j8YKMSaf3Tvv_K14czQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAOG=w-tf7qz9XSkDg5POKtFLkHWDA==jf2iVxVL8wz1hqcAVOg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CANEZrP33GCiZHK1GV2Qt_R_AHK6SEjybGPtmORjqgvQ9MiYVZQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2015 13:31:26 +0200
Message-ID: <CABm2gDq4vRYEaJ+JdCOAhwF9UnFESdzMraM2ChNQmMDyQ6hqMA@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
To: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Cc: Bitcoin Development <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>,
	Gavin Andresen <gavin@bitcoinfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Concerns Regarding Threats by a Developer
 to Remove Commit Access from Other Developers
Precedence: list

On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 11:37 AM, Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net> wrote:
>> Or alternatively, fix the reasons why users would have negative
>> experiences with full blocks
>
>
> It's impossible, Mark. By definition if Bitcoin does not have sufficient
> capacity for everyone's transactions, some users who were using it will be
> kicked out to make way for the others. Whether that happens in some kind of
> stable organised way or (as with the current code) a fairly chaotic way
> doesn't change the fundamental truth: some users will find their bitcoin
> savings have become uneconomic to spend.

He doesn't mean that: he means solving the mempool and crashes and
hitting the limit would have.
If the chain has limited size it is a scarce resource and people have
to bid for it: nothing unexpected or wrong about that.
Of course, people that believe the limit should be completely removed
eventually because they don't care about mining being decentralized
(or fail to see the relation between the two) may have a very
different view about this.

On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 12:08 PM, GC <slashdevnull@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Timeframe for transaction fees topping block reward fees => many years in
> the future, based on current ratio of block reward to fees.

Do you think that this ratio is unrelated to an abundant (non-scarce)
block size?
When is the right time to allow space pressure to rise that ratio?
When the subsidy is at 1.5625, for example, it may be too late to
start a non-catastrophic transition from subsidies to fees.
I don't claim to know that, but it's something that worries me.
No matter how many people say "that's too far away in the future to
worry about it", I still worry about it and I'm sure more people do.
What if "when it's time to care about it" we discover that we should
have started to do things about it long ago to minimize the risks of
this transition?