On Dec 16, 2015 10:08 PM, "Jeff Garzik via bitcoin-dev" <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 1:34 PM, Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 3:53 PM, Jeff Garzik via bitcoin-dev
>> <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>> > 2) If block size stays at 1M, the Bitcoin Core developer team should sign a
>> > collective note stating their desire to transition to a new economic policy,
>> > that of "healthy fee market" and strongly urge users to examine their fee
>> > policies, wallet software, transaction volumes and other possible User
>> > impacting outcomes.
>>
>> You present this as if the Bitcoin Core development team is in charge
>> of deciding the network consensus rules, and is responsible for making
>> changes to it in order to satisfy economic demand. If that is the
>> case, Bitcoin has failed, in my opinion.
>
>
> This circles back to Problem #1:   Avoidance of a choice is a still a choice - failing to ACK a MAX_BLOCK_SIZE increase still creates very real Economic Change Event risk.

Unless the community is going to always avoid this "economic change event" forever (effectively eliminating MAX_BLOCK_SIZE), this is going to happen at some point. I assume those concerned with the "economic change" are only scared about it because "nitcoin is still very young" of something like that.
Since you advocate for delaying this event from happening, can you be clearer about when do you think it would be ok to let the event happen?
What other event makes this event ok?

> Hitting a Fee Event is market changing, potentially reshuffling economic actors to a notable degree.  Maintaining a short term economic policy of fixed 1M supply in the face of rising transaction volume carries risks that should be analyzed and communicated.

Assuming we adopt bip102, eventually you will be able to say exactly the same about 2 MB. When does this "let's not change the economics" finishes (if ever)?