From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1Z40Lp-0003JC-UD for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sun, 14 Jun 2015 05:20:57 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.192.179 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.192.179; envelope-from=elombrozo@gmail.com; helo=mail-pd0-f179.google.com; Received: from mail-pd0-f179.google.com ([209.85.192.179]) by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1Z40Lo-0007g1-UT for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sun, 14 Jun 2015 05:20:57 +0000 Received: by pdjm12 with SMTP id m12so49551033pdj.3 for ; Sat, 13 Jun 2015 22:20:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.66.145.74 with SMTP id ss10mr37171326pab.28.1434259251310; Sat, 13 Jun 2015 22:20:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.102] (cpe-76-167-237-202.san.res.rr.com. [76.167.237.202]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id da2sm8191313pbb.57.2015.06.13.22.20.48 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sat, 13 Jun 2015 22:20:49 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2098\)) Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_44053D0B-5801-4A36-A5BC-39E060BF038E"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512 X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.5b6 From: Eric Lombrozo In-Reply-To: Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2015 22:20:37 -0700 Message-Id: <04527D50-0118-4E74-8226-3E29B29CC7D8@gmail.com> References: <20150612181153.GB19199@muck> <3BB36FC7-9212-42A1-A756-A66929C15D4F@gmail.com> To: Jeff Garzik X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2098) X-Spam-Score: -0.9 (/) 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 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (elombrozo[at]gmail.com) -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 -0.3 AWL AWL: Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address X-Headers-End: 1Z40Lo-0007g1-UT Cc: Bitcoin Dev 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: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2015 05:20:58 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_44053D0B-5801-4A36-A5BC-39E060BF038E Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_3B4B0392-6097-4609-8DB8-732F1E4180D8" --Apple-Mail=_3B4B0392-6097-4609-8DB8-732F1E4180D8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 I definitely think we need some voting system for metaconsensus=E2=80=A6bu= t if we=E2=80=99re going to seriously consider this we should look at = the problem much more generally. Using false choices doesn=E2=80=99t = really help, though ;) - Eric Lombrozo > On Jun 13, 2015, at 10:13 PM, Jeff Garzik wrote: >=20 > On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 1:08 AM, Eric Lombrozo > wrote: > 2) BIP100 has direct economic consequences=E2=80=A6and particularly = for miners. It lends itself to much greater corruptibility. >=20 >=20 > 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? --Apple-Mail=_3B4B0392-6097-4609-8DB8-732F1E4180D8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 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 problem much more generally. Using false = choices doesn=E2=80=99t really help, though ;)

- 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 for 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?

= --Apple-Mail=_3B4B0392-6097-4609-8DB8-732F1E4180D8-- --Apple-Mail=_44053D0B-5801-4A36-A5BC-39E060BF038E Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJVfQ8lAAoJEJNAI64YFENUIioP/jpNC9Batx53qXThVd1UYSq9 mN8MBEsiMJIKHiJPCzGeN9VlTIDWMoisUhgIbQYwbpEpKoYZRxcmIBQfhcag9Aby uTxwuyWb2nifylBKyw1aNKSZjias4ovW2NB6eQ+UqPoui1HtAAI0HJ00gqH617Jp q0liyfknAfHDbaoaZ4KmqxGfbhAkGAUfU0XmRcUU7gne6c0/53OqOk2sqkadFKzm 8Mkcwv3HlSuEB580u56JRhEGFXHIDTUYAWws/LkdS3XbOY118X1YxMHCVdQN/Bz5 OT+sgEbUgXFBg3zO8IdQ+0WuLN4ZHOHca4I3Rmbc0g63YTQPRTCcA77tPSNUdDiE FeqzRGmaWenNgNPYjk/2XytwcEXJxsGLSwIic0tPyGM3CnvgKBLkSWMS+V59Ymp2 IXTk5n11VoJacIw2E6wYM6U/UnPiNNzzqr9e1IYESQERbVzYUDAs+DTYsOVb+BBF qal7u4gH7QY4wRGZx1PkJzjcFNohG5ky/dsIEhFVNHwrj1FsHDgOS8gywkY/Txhu RoAy9TjyoIbm6MtWt1zfbka22LpDnm3DjrQbWw6Dl7Y8Kbt5XgLkldQxNjmAGZtE owqHqQDJpo8itqGMzbQoGwsIQaBi3mW/yQpn++sOxyMBO2taBhhs8ne5yhLUac0b CFOGXDDVNWUFwx8iv3wC =rCaf -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_44053D0B-5801-4A36-A5BC-39E060BF038E--