1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
|
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 <jgarzik@bitpay.com>) id 1Z497V-0004Yq-W4
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sun, 14 Jun 2015 14:42:46 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.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;
Received: from mail-ob0-f172.google.com ([209.85.214.172])
by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1Z497U-0006wO-4J
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sun, 14 Jun 2015 14:42:45 +0000
Received: by obbgp2 with SMTP id gp2so49107283obb.2
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Sun, 14 Jun 2015 07:42:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date
:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type;
bh=vdhcd+ZSQVrBk/RfELq/V68nfCqc6gEd7he6TcTbVs8=;
b=MNX9cdAJ6wOuTws4EK4O4ilyZGV4zkUo6l2a1l22WtmkLiXCSaXptZk+NauEuNXwO5
isR1mcje1HSvxoyU4SdfZaijfqNmYBvagELDfm7ZLZ1EG3AkEbT2graJf1voBR2iNleO
YTSosJPk52HkWSA1wR86+yfwpMmchG2Mfv19xN0WkDuZIY362C4Z3FyMdwEBb401V5Rn
5dHnTjdelrvrTeHeDvbOEY2JDE3ArHG/00NnlHne2aseSHr4pB832shIDYdn+YskeA1R
p8Y87lqEsJBOgn9UrwJFv6OCtNTXdcg08jX0Cy41s71ueg2g7+rNZpNEkc+wWOga8co4
2SWA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQk9zyapG3nhRvDG6aOPBANSgZEXcgz6CaVEByGfebv7YVzBJtV5PPBDuCFc0C4zmOkT+dbN
X-Received: by 10.202.83.83 with SMTP id h80mr18796755oib.56.1434292958550;
Sun, 14 Jun 2015 07:42:38 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.202.108.149 with HTTP; Sun, 14 Jun 2015 07:42:17 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <557D5239.1070105@henricson.se>
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>
From: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@bitpay.com>
Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2015 10:42:17 -0400
Message-ID: <CAJHLa0OVJq-UqL5ecdEoXgy84WV40=Ympefnzn15DBhVBjCzuw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mats Henricson <mats@henricson.se>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113b0a084c771a05187b5aec
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 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: 1Z497U-0006wO-4J
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] User vote in blocksize through fees
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2015 14:42:46 -0000
--001a113b0a084c771a05187b5aec
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Since you missed it, here is the suggestion again:
http://gtf.org/garzik/bitcoin/BIP100-blocksizechangeproposal.pdf
On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 6:06 AM, Mats Henricson <mats@henricson.se> wrote:
> Jeff,
>
> with all due respect, but I've seen you saying this a few times
> now, that this decision is oh so difficult and important.
>
> But this is not helpful. We all know that. Even I.
>
> Make a suggestion, or stay out of the debate!
>
> Mats
>
> 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?
> >
> > There is a large consensus that it needs increasing. To what? By what
> > factor?
> >
> > 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, fee=
s
> > 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.
> >
> > The size limit is an economic policy lever that needs to be transitione=
d
> > -away- from software and software developers, to the free market.
> >
> > 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 cloister=
ed
> > and vetted Technical Advisory Board as has been proposed.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 1:20 AM, Eric Lombrozo <elombrozo@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >> 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 p=
roblem
> much
> >> more generally. Using false choices doesn=E2=80=99t really help, thoug=
h ;)
> >>
> >> - Eric Lombrozo
> >>
> >>
> >> On Jun 13, 2015, at 10:13 PM, Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@bitpay.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 1:08 AM, Eric Lombrozo <elombrozo@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> 2) BIP100 has direct economic consequences=E2=80=A6and particularly f=
or miners.
> >>> It lends itself to much greater corruptibility.
> >>>
> >>>
> >> 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?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-----
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Bitcoin-development mailing list
> > Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
> >
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-----
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>
--=20
Jeff Garzik
Bitcoin core developer and open source evangelist
BitPay, Inc. https://bitpay.com/
--001a113b0a084c771a05187b5aec
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr">Since you missed it, here is the suggestion again:=C2=A0<a=
href=3D"http://gtf.org/garzik/bitcoin/BIP100-blocksizechangeproposal.pdf">=
http://gtf.org/garzik/bitcoin/BIP100-blocksizechangeproposal.pdf</a><div><b=
r></div></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On =
Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 6:06 AM, Mats Henricson <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=
=3D"mailto:mats@henricson.se" target=3D"_blank">mats@henricson.se</a>></=
span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8e=
x;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Jeff,<br>
<br>
with all due respect, but I've seen you saying this a few times<br>
now, that this decision is oh so difficult and important.<br>
<br>
But this is not helpful. We all know that. Even I.<br>
<br>
Make a suggestion, or stay out of the debate!<br>
<span class=3D"HOEnZb"><font color=3D"#888888"><br>
Mats<br>
</font></span><div class=3D"HOEnZb"><div class=3D"h5"><br>
On 06/14/2015 07:36 AM, Jeff Garzik wrote:<br>
> The choice is very real and on-point.=C2=A0 What should the block size=
limit<br>
> be?=C2=A0 Why?<br>
><br>
> There is a large consensus that it needs increasing.=C2=A0 To what?=C2=
=A0 By what<br>
> factor?<br>
><br>
> The size limit literally defines the fee market, the whole damn thing.=
=C2=A0 If<br>
> software high priests choose a size limit of 300k, space is scarce, fe=
es<br>
> are bid high.=C2=A0 If software high priests choose a size limit of 32=
mb, space<br>
> is plentiful, fees are near zero.=C2=A0 Market actors take their signa=
ls<br>
> accordingly.=C2=A0 Some business models boom, some business models fai=
l, as a<br>
> direct result of changing this unintentionally-added speedbump.=C2=A0 =
Different<br>
> users value adoption, decentralization etc. differently.<br>
><br>
> The size limit is an economic policy lever that needs to be transition=
ed<br>
> -away- from software and software developers, to the free market.<br>
><br>
> A simple, e.g. hard fork to 2MB or 4MB does not fix higher level gover=
nance<br>
> problems associated with actors lobbying developers, even if a cloiste=
red<br>
> and vetted Technical Advisory Board as has been proposed.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 1:20 AM, Eric Lombrozo <<a href=3D"mailto:e=
lombrozo@gmail.com">elombrozo@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
>> I definitely think we need some voting system for metaconsensus=E2=
=80=A6but if<br>
>> we=E2=80=99re going to seriously consider this we should look at t=
he problem much<br>
>> more generally. Using false choices doesn=E2=80=99t really help, t=
hough ;)<br>
>><br>
>> - Eric Lombrozo<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> On Jun 13, 2015, at 10:13 PM, Jeff Garzik <<a href=3D"mailto:jg=
arzik@bitpay.com">jgarzik@bitpay.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 1:08 AM, Eric Lombrozo <<a href=3D"mail=
to:elombrozo@gmail.com">elombrozo@gmail.com</a>><br>
>> wrote:<br>
>><br>
>>> 2) BIP100 has direct economic consequences=E2=80=A6and particu=
larly for miners.<br>
>>> It lends itself to much greater corruptibility.<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>> What is the alternative?=C2=A0 Have a Chief Scientist or Technical=
Advisory<br>
>> Board choose what is a proper fee, what is a proper level of<br>
>> decentralization, a proper growth factor?<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
</div></div><div class=3D"HOEnZb"><div class=3D"h5">> ------------------=
------------------------------------------------------------<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> Bitcoin-development mailing list<br>
> <a href=3D"mailto:Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net">Bitcoin-d=
evelopment@lists.sourceforge.net</a><br>
> <a href=3D"https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-develo=
pment" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.sourceforge.net/l=
ists/listinfo/bitcoin-development</a><br>
><br>
<br>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
---<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Bitcoin-development mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net">Bitcoin-develo=
pment@lists.sourceforge.net</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development=
" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/=
listinfo/bitcoin-development</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear=3D"all"><div><br></div>-- <br>=
<div class=3D"gmail_signature">Jeff Garzik<br>Bitcoin core developer and op=
en 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>
--001a113b0a084c771a05187b5aec--
|
