Re: [bitcoin-dev] The need for larger blocks

[Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2185 bytes --]

On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 8:24 AM, Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 5:22 PM, Milly Bitcoin <milly@bitcoins.info>
> wrote:
>
>> >None of this is a reason why the size can't increase. However, in my
>> opinion, we should do it because we believe it increases utility and
>> understand the risks; not because we're afraid of what might happen if we
>> don't hurry up. And from that point of view, it seems silly to make a huge
>> increase at once...
>>
>> Yes.  I think people/businesses want some kind of assurance that there is
>> a path to get things done when needed rather than immediate changes.  Since
>> there is currently no clear path/schedule to get any changes accomplished
>> they gets anxious.
>>
>
> I think you just proved my point by saying "when needed".
>

Proposing inaction is not the way you convince people that bitcoin can
scale.

People and businesses cannot perform any capacity planning and future
projections under the proposal of "economic change through inaction."

There will be no growth, by your argument, until there is fee pressure.
And what happens then?

a) Block size limit increases, disrupting and rebooting the fee market.
      or
b) You argue that fees have taken care of the capacity.

Waiting until blocks are full before taking action produces even more
disruption and market-unpredictable behavior than today.

I understand you want a fee market to develop, and increasing the block
size limit retards/prevents that.  The fact remains that that is a _major_
change to economic policy that creates a _more_ unpredictable system.

Who knows when Pieter will agree that a fee market is healthy?  And at that
time, once blocks are full, changing the block size limit then will produce
even more disruption, going from

            little pressure -> lots of pressure -> little pressure

Inaction produces fee pressure produces volatility.  And makes it more
difficult for system users to perform capacity planning.

I see a lot of microscopic fee analysis - economically insignificant for at
least 12 months to come - and very little holistic analysis from people
arguing that inaction is the best course.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3358 bytes --]