summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/7e/219a5eff543c59fca8ec5998695f750fc684ef
blob: 4ea66afcdb008c08fdb08907dbf9037ff22a1449 (plain)
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
Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191]
	helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
	by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <odinn.cyberguerrilla@riseup.net>) id 1Z4FwL-0002yp-D2
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Sun, 14 Jun 2015 21:59:41 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of riseup.net
	designates 198.252.153.129 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=198.252.153.129;
	envelope-from=odinn.cyberguerrilla@riseup.net;
	helo=mx1.riseup.net; 
Received: from mx1.riseup.net ([198.252.153.129])
	by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256)
	(Exim 4.76) id 1Z4FwK-0007es-06
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Sun, 14 Jun 2015 21:59:41 +0000
Received: from berryeater.riseup.net (berryeater-pn.riseup.net [10.0.1.120])
	(using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
	(Client CN "*.riseup.net",
	Issuer "COMODO RSA Domain Validation Secure Server CA" (verified OK))
	by mx1.riseup.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 481F640D42
	for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
	Sun, 14 Jun 2015 21:59:34 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	(Authenticated sender: odinn.cyberguerrilla)
	with ESMTPSA id 0348842001
Message-ID: <557DF945.1060909@riseup.net>
Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2015 14:59:33 -0700
From: odinn <odinn.cyberguerrilla@riseup.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64;
	rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
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>	<CAOoPuRaaA2Bi3RJCpi-vF6odSbTRwfOUi+x7csS8VQYkoWN7bw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAJHLa0MA6hoquewGSTcWNabpk5OycCpFuOOykDObEF-1NRXqow@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAJHLa0MA6hoquewGSTcWNabpk5OycCpFuOOykDObEF-1NRXqow@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.98.7 at mx1
X-Virus-Status: Clean
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam-Score: -1.7 (-)
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 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/,
	no trust [198.252.153.129 listed in list.dnswl.org]
	-0.0 SPF_HELO_PASS          SPF: HELO matches SPF record
	-0.0 SPF_PASS               SPF: sender matches SPF record
	-0.4 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay
	domain
	0.1 DKIM_SIGNED            Message has a DKIM or DK signature,
	not necessarily valid
	0.0 T_DKIM_INVALID DKIM-Signature header exists but is not valid
	0.0 UNPARSEABLE_RELAY Informational: message has unparseable relay
	lines
	0.1 AWL AWL: Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address
X-Headers-End: 1Z4FwK-0007es-06
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 21:59:41 -0000

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Notionally, I agree with what I see written here by Jeff, and I
appreciate the thoughtfulness that went into this short post to list.

On 06/14/2015 08:07 AM, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Exactly -- both block size proponents and block size change=20
> conservatives seem to be glossing over this aspect - much to my=20
> dismay.
>=20
> Choosing the size limit is choosing the size of a scarce resource.=20
> By fiat.
>=20
> It is wrong to think that a "technical consensus" can choose what=20
> is best here.
>=20
> The block size limit defines the scope of a resource for which all=20
> fee market actors bid.  That, in turn, defines who is in the fee=20
> market and how they behave, what market choices are made.
>=20
> It doesn't matter how or why the limit was originally enacted, what
> Satoshi meant to do.  What matters, economically, is what is. What
> the software and our $3B economy & market knows and sees today.  (I
> think some block size change proponents miss this!)
>=20
> The solution lies in transitioning this size limit to the free=20
> market. In the end, the users must choose their desired level of=20
> growth, decentralization, etc.  We cannot rely on some dev's idea=20
> of the proper level of fee, proper level of growth, proper level
> of decentralization.
>=20
> And IMO, a "floating limit with training wheels" is better and=20
> stronger for bitcoin's health from a governance, user choice and=20
> free market perspective than simply "hard fork to 2MB, come back=20
> again in 6 months."
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 6:34 AM, Benjamin=20
> <benjamin.l.cordes@gmail.com <mailto:benjamin.l.cordes@gmail.com>>=20
> wrote:
>=20
> "The size limit is an economic policy lever that needs to be=20
> transitioned -away- from software and software developers, to the=20
> free market."
>=20
> Exactly right. Bitcoin does not have a free market for fee though,=20
> and literally all the discussion so far has neglected some=20
> fundamental aspect of this, as you described. It's not at all a=20
> "technical" or "engineering" decision. It's the question of how to=20
> potentially re-design a fundamental part of Bitcoin, and the=20
> proposals so far don't address this. What is the price of the=20
> scarce resource of the blockchain and the mechanism to decide on=20
> price, once the subsidy runs out?
>=20
> On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 12:06 PM, Mats Henricson <mats@henricson.se
> <mailto:mats@henricson.se>> wrote:
>> Jeff,
>>=20
>> with all due respect, but I've seen you saying this a few times=20
>> now, that this decision is oh so difficult and important.
>>=20
>> But this is not helpful. We all know that. Even I.
>>=20
>> Make a suggestion, or stay out of the debate!
>>=20
>> Mats
>>=20
>> On 06/14/2015 07:36 AM, Jeff Garzik wrote:
>>> The choice is very real and on-point.  What should the block=20
>>> size
> limit
>>> be?  Why?
>>>=20
>>> There is a large consensus that it needs increasing.  To what?
>>>=20
> By what
>>> factor?
>>>=20
>>> The size limit literally defines the fee market, the whole=20
>>> damn
> thing.  If
>>> software high priests choose a size limit of 300k, space is
> scarce, fees
>>> are bid high.  If software high priests choose a size limit of
> 32mb, space
>>> is plentiful, fees are near zero.  Market actors take their=20
>>> signals accordingly.  Some business models boom, some business=20
>>> models
> fail, as a
>>> direct result of changing this unintentionally-added
>>> speedbump.
>>>=20
> Different
>>> users value adoption, decentralization etc. differently.
>>>=20
>>> The size limit is an economic policy lever that needs to be
> transitioned
>>> -away- from software and software developers, to the free=20
>>> market.
>>>=20
>>> A simple, e.g. hard fork to 2MB or 4MB does not fix higher=20
>>> level
> governance
>>> problems associated with actors lobbying developers, even if a
> cloistered
>>> and vetted Technical Advisory Board as has been proposed.
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>> On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 1:20 AM, Eric Lombrozo
> <elombrozo@gmail.com <mailto:elombrozo@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>=20
>>>> I definitely think we need some voting system for
> metaconsensus=85but if
>>>> we=92re going to seriously consider this we should look at the
> problem much
>>>> more generally. Using false choices doesn=92t really help,=20
>>>> though ;)
>>>>=20
>>>> - Eric Lombrozo
>>>>=20
>>>>=20
>>>> On Jun 13, 2015, at 10:13 PM, Jeff Garzik=20
>>>> <jgarzik@bitpay.com
> <mailto:jgarzik@bitpay.com>> wrote:
>>>>=20
>>>> On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 1:08 AM, Eric Lombrozo
> <elombrozo@gmail.com <mailto:elombrozo@gmail.com>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>=20
>>>>> 2) BIP100 has direct economic consequences=85and
>>>>> particularly for
> miners.
>>>>> It lends itself to much greater corruptibility.
>>>>>=20
>>>>>=20
>>>> What is the alternative?  Have a Chief Scientist or=20
>>>> Technical
> Advisory
>>>> Board choose what is a proper fee, what is a proper level of
>>>>  decentralization, a proper growth factor?
>>>>=20
>>>>=20
>>>>=20
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>>=20
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
- --------
>
>
>=20
>>=20
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>> _______________________________________________=20
>>> Bitcoin-development mailing list=20
>>> Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
> <mailto:Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>
>>>
>>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
- --------
>
>
>=20
_______________________________________________
>> Bitcoin-development mailing list=20
>> Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
> <mailto:Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>=20
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
- --------
>
>
>=20
_______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list=20
> Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net=20
> <mailto:Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>=20
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> -- Jeff Garzik Bitcoin core developer and open source evangelist=20
> BitPay, Inc.      https://bitpay.com/
>=20
>=20
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
- --------
>
>
>=20
>=20
>=20
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net=20
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>=20

- --=20
http://abis.io ~
"a protocol concept to enable decentralization
and expansion of a giving economy, and a new social good"
https://keybase.io/odinn
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJVfflFAAoJEGxwq/inSG8CrWoIAJOsZHTWqdILE0IYmmE50E/S
BcbPJJtjodw1liPVJEybyNUKSgq4Ucw9tuQpMVv3hF8bvug6/6HtxAQCptuIKRSw
WigZyvgm79u474YsPULG+2SltMrOFqmA05jTF9vWo0LBSY4xiMXjT4VwVt9xEcFc
qHW5OUa1QoFZkaOf/jtY+H3a9w8cHZFlroTkf4MaJkaMo81oSRfWz3Mj8wOz6f8z
MSEpvQERzETEcV0SqTBnzsoX8toO1s24a9HejMMfbeD7JAy8EvayFb3G1LNzBNVC
1x/yeLBGnE3Z0P80J0oUR5taLbGJl9+7Hb16rEzxivtZF5FWBdDmvwKBOKJ1Alo=3D
=3DubcH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----