Re: [bitcoin-dev] Block size: It's economics & user preparation & moral hazard

[Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1460 bytes --]

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.

And #3:  If the likely predicted course is that Bitcoin Core will not
accept a protocol change changing MAX_BLOCK_SIZE via hard fork in the short
term, the core dev team should communicate that position clearly to users
and media.

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.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2035 bytes --]