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 1YqMr5-0004bB-Ok for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 07 May 2015 14:32:51 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of petertodd.org designates 62.13.148.161 as permitted sender) client-ip=62.13.148.161; envelope-from=pete@petertodd.org; helo=outmail148161.authsmtp.com; Received: from outmail148161.authsmtp.com ([62.13.148.161]) by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) id 1YqMr0-0003CZ-5O for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 07 May 2015 14:32:51 +0000 Received: from mail-c235.authsmtp.com (mail-c235.authsmtp.com [62.13.128.235]) by punt15.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id t47EWcVE061931; Thu, 7 May 2015 15:32:38 +0100 (BST) Received: from savin.petertodd.org (75-119-251-161.dsl.teksavvy.com [75.119.251.161]) (authenticated bits=128) by mail.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id t47EWYxR072352 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 7 May 2015 15:32:37 +0100 (BST) Date: Thu, 7 May 2015 10:32:34 -0400 From: Peter Todd To: Jeff Garzik Message-ID: <20150507143234.GB32602@savin.petertodd.org> References: <554A91BE.6060105@bluematt.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="uQr8t48UFsdbeI+V" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Server-Quench: e8afb374-f4c5-11e4-b396-002590a15da7 X-AuthReport-Spam: If SPAM / abuse - report it at: http://www.authsmtp.com/abuse X-AuthRoute: OCd2Yg0TA1ZNQRgX IjsJECJaVQIpKltL GxAVKBZePFsRUQkR aQdMdgUUFVQNAgsB AmMbWlFeU197WmQ7 bA9PbARUfEhLXhtr VklWR1pVCwQmRRgG c3l3GntycAdFfXw+ ZEJrWHAVCUwrIxR+ RUpJQ2lVYHphaTUb TRJbfgVJcANIexZF O1F6ACIKLwdSbGoL NQ4vNDcwO3BTJTpY RgYVKF8UXXNDNDo7 TBNKJjQ9EAUkQS4p IhU9JzYB X-Authentic-SMTP: 61633532353630.1023:706 X-AuthFastPath: 0 (Was 255) X-AuthSMTP-Origin: 75.119.251.161/587 X-AuthVirus-Status: No virus detected - but ensure you scan with your own anti-virus system. X-Spam-Score: -1.5 (-) 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 X-Headers-End: 1YqMr0-0003CZ-5O Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Block Size Increase 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: Thu, 07 May 2015 14:32:51 -0000 --uQr8t48UFsdbeI+V Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, May 07, 2015 at 10:04:21AM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote: > I have a lot more written down, a WIP; here are the highlights. >=20 > - The 1MB limit is an ancient anti-spam limit, and needs to go. >=20 > - The 1MB limit is economically entrenched at this point, and cannot be > removed at a whim. >=20 > - This is a major change to the economics of a $3.2B system. This change > picks winners and losers. There is attendant moral hazard. >=20 > - The core dev team is not and should not be an FOMC. >=20 > - The bar for "major economic change to a $3.2B system" should necessarily > be high. In the more boring world of investments, this would accompanied > by Due Diligence including but not limited to projections for success, > failure scenarios, upside risks and downside risks. Projections and > fact-based simulations. >=20 > - There are significant disruption risks on the pro (change it) and con > (keep 1MB) sides of the debate. >=20 > - People are privately lobbying Gavin for this. That is the wrong way to > go. I have pushed for a more public debate, and public endorsements (or > condemnations) from major miners, merchants, payment processors, > stackholders, ... It is unfair to criticize Gavin to doing this. The hard part here will be including the players who aren't individually "major", but are collectively important; who is the community? How do you give the small merchants a voice in this discussion? The small time traders? The small time miners? The people in repressive countries who are trying to transact on thier own terms? Legality? Should people involved in 3rd world remittances be included? Even if what they're doing is technically illegal? What about dark markets? If DPR voiced his opinion, should we ignore it? Personally, I'm dubious about trying to make ecosystem-wide decisions like this without cryptographic consensus; fuzzy human social consensus is easy to manipulate. --=20 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org 000000000000000013e67b343b1f6d75cc87dfb54430bdb3bcf66d8d4b3ef6b8 --uQr8t48UFsdbeI+V Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQGrBAEBCACVBQJVS3d+XhSAAAAAABUAQGJsb2NraGFzaEBiaXRjb2luLm9yZzAw MDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwMDAxM2U2N2IzNDNiMWY2ZDc1Y2M4N2RmYjU0NDMwYmRiM2Jj ZjY2ZDhkNGIzZWY2YjgvFIAAAAAAFQARcGthLWFkZHJlc3NAZ251cGcub3JncGV0 ZUBwZXRlcnRvZC5vcmcACgkQJIFAPaXwkfsqrwf+OtcfL+XaZQpSvWZHUkRCL9MD IYFCQuHkDNumTLFhUcLbDlwGetsDewgziq8PY7yt9s7SLs34RxAtITfJqUtshLni atD2/rA2mvEAKrDbUxdlfoaOkJhKtr4IBoX4O8vOVMc9Pj1dDjXMGl/+ARs4JyeF od3BUxhYjw4xV9R9yYVRU5pJT4dHI4KkwjsHNBbvSBs5FaVBGCwbtG0tFl0Bypg6 cP0hUnDq07M1oson/GuKts8uWr1iO+LTCSjf/EMYMrepzWMV/Gr8cREjqtRT9QQ3 3heUGrbYAN4Mqy/LJr5/nb2j8tNf/UHdoLnLpodlBg02U+1VYuXXqOm5j8LEtw== =kjAb -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --uQr8t48UFsdbeI+V--