From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1Z44od-0003vw-RQ for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sun, 14 Jun 2015 10:06:59 +0000 X-ACL-Warn: Received: from postman.datakultur.com ([213.212.33.189]) by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) id 1Z44ob-000117-PY for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sun, 14 Jun 2015 10:06:59 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by postman.datakultur.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A575100AEBC for ; Sun, 14 Jun 2015 12:06:51 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at postman.datakultur.com Received: from postman.datakultur.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (postman.datakultur.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id A81jcUTnDho3 for ; Sun, 14 Jun 2015 12:06:49 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [192.168.0.11] (c80-216-178-136.bredband.comhem.se [80.216.178.136]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by postman.datakultur.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8CFF5100AEA6 for ; Sun, 14 Jun 2015 12:06:49 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <557D5239.1070105@henricson.se> Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2015 12:06:49 +0200 From: Mats Henricson User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net References: <20150612181153.GB19199@muck> <3BB36FC7-9212-42A1-A756-A66929C15D4F@gmail.com> <04527D50-0118-4E74-8226-3E29B29CC7D8@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. X-Headers-End: 1Z44ob-000117-PY 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 10:06:59 -0000 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? >=20 > There is a large consensus that it needs increasing. To what? By what > factor? >=20 > 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, sp= ace > 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. Differ= ent > users value adoption, decentralization etc. differently. >=20 > The size limit is an economic policy lever that needs to be transitione= d > -away- from software and software developers, to the free market. >=20 > A simple, e.g. hard fork to 2MB or 4MB does not fix higher level govern= ance > problems associated with actors lobbying developers, even if a cloister= ed > 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 wr= ote: >=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, though ;) >> >> - Eric Lombrozo >> >> >> On Jun 13, 2015, at 10:13 PM, Jeff Garzik wrote: >> >> On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 1:08 AM, Eric Lombrozo >> wrote: >> >>> 2) BIP100 has direct economic consequences=85and particularly for min= ers. >>> 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? >> >> >> >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > -----------------------------------------------------------------------= ------- >=20 >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Bitcoin-development mailing list > Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development >=20