From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6EE77F0B for ; Wed, 16 Dec 2015 21:36:19 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-ig0-f174.google.com (mail-ig0-f174.google.com [209.85.213.174]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B1502ED for ; Wed, 16 Dec 2015 21:36:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ig0-f174.google.com with SMTP id to18so67967824igc.0 for ; Wed, 16 Dec 2015 13:36:18 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=xz9RyMv3hNqIVMU1OMvOim602cj1r9JmZRezN+F5sj4=; b=m9xhj/iJnbqBxmZIDWd5tio9cuswdzWFTvQ9OS++HKiEeEKG/brNZZKnHMVzYIe77i fpIFWjwm+zwCY8SHYzuNOSvUGghNEtahga4zb/4KuiBpmgAp5FaH3dz1R8xKWzziWVnz Odw5ZU0EDu9WZ0/YSHWKRfnu6Idg7DSLH20ZgFXXmwZBzTxmjT1DsTbpfoeGrmpE4uL9 h4lYJgzDfbNKn0sRaG1sILY4xkCTC0SbNJYKgbf60BJv8l4r+FZWwj40MDqQtogdEP0c VfNyU5+/Shxmh/6UqbaYK6kPoBQDhNJKS2faMFmenfsosbvBZjWfJrqP1xb23c5V09Eg 7ENA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.107.185.133 with SMTP id j127mr45704846iof.91.1450301778267; Wed, 16 Dec 2015 13:36:18 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.79.8.198 with HTTP; Wed, 16 Dec 2015 13:36:18 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 16:36:18 -0500 Message-ID: From: Jeff Garzik To: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c070a1c4f92e705270ab27e X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Block size: It's economics & user preparation & moral hazard X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 21:36:19 -0000 --94eb2c070a1c4f92e705270ab27e Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 4:24 PM, Jorge Tim=C3=B3n wrote: > 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)? > The question is answered in the original email. In the short term, the risk of a Fee Event and lack of solid post-Fee-Event economic plan implies "short term bump" reduces those risks. It is also true - as noted in [1], a bump does create the danger of long term moral hazard. This is why a bump should be accompanied with at least a weak public commitment to flexcap or a similar long term proposal, as the original email recommended. Communicate clearly the conditions for future change, then iterate as needs and feedback indicate. [1] http://gtf.org/garzik/bitcoin/BIP100-blocksizechangeproposal.pdf --94eb2c070a1c4f92e705270ab27e Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 4:24 PM, Jorge Tim=C3=B3n <jtimon@= jtimon.cc> wrote:

Assuming we adopt bip10= 2, eventually you will be able to say exactly the same about 2 MB. When doe= s this "let's not change the economics" finishes (if ever)?

The question is ans= wered in the original email.

In the short term, the risk of a Fee Event and lack = of solid post-Fee-Event economic plan implies "short term bump" r= educes those risks.

It is also true - as noted in [1], a bump does create the dan= ger of long term moral hazard.

This is why a bump should be accompanied with at l= east a weak public commitment to flexcap or a similar long term proposal, a= s the original email recommended.=C2=A0 Communicate clearly the conditions = for future change, then iterate as needs and feedback indicate.



[1]=C2=A0http:= //gtf.org/garzik/bitcoin/BIP100-blocksizechangeproposal.pdf




--94eb2c070a1c4f92e705270ab27e--