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 628D2724 for ; Wed, 22 Jul 2015 19:13:21 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-ig0-f177.google.com (mail-ig0-f177.google.com [209.85.213.177]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F0E3B18A for ; Wed, 22 Jul 2015 19:13:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: by iggf3 with SMTP id f3so140424538igg.1 for ; Wed, 22 Jul 2015 12:13:20 -0700 (PDT) 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=GJxd925vMYBhUEyAxlwQIfiWUdZzm+HCMANjii1fC5c=; b=DYXI4GF5yN/b0IYOeW3R/WuwypBpK3xD9jUZj2GYjekf37xTjUfkSh/3sR6JseqXr7 Hmrkj4CcH1R9NwzsY5WUMMfqet7pieEzZ+r0rjLgDH9hAcBKApPHkXb4Hq00+eoAw2GA B2h0qwBLtMGzjG6D+uB3VMATYAXBgzixaS5iDZkukQrPtbimq0IW9Xy8fbpowiWMRD/6 8JeN1mxL7HQdx2Kf/O9vx4dzRd+Pox9vls3Qo6OkndOhus2iYXnQQjt8cDwOuPE1GAKJ Nr/wb8kR/fLGKBEfPdd1hAgGLm/GA/Fxs5MebsgQpByURl9AKu7VFvmll+6PoyY7CjzJ EEzA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.107.15.35 with SMTP id x35mr7342082ioi.168.1437588113111; Wed, 22 Jul 2015 11:01:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.79.38.79 with HTTP; Wed, 22 Jul 2015 11:01:53 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 11:01:53 -0700 Message-ID: From: Jeff Garzik To: Pieter Wuille Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113ed7ead0c00f051b7a9010 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@lists.linuxfoundation.org Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin Core and hard forks 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, 22 Jul 2015 19:13:21 -0000 --001a113ed7ead0c00f051b7a9010 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Addendum: Please do not interpret - as many have - my points as advocating against letting a fee market ever develop(!). Fees are useful against DoS, increasing cost of attack etc. Further, continuing the artificially-low fee policy ad infinitum is unsustainable and constitutes a moral hazard. Examine from the user's point of view. If you want to develop a fee market, think it through in the context of user expectation/experience - which translates to how software is written and users behave, the context of market disruption, and the context of further block size increases. Transition to a new economic policy should be planned. It should give users and markets time to adjust. It is grossly irresponsible to simply drop users into a new economic policy with no warning and no preparation. --001a113ed7ead0c00f051b7a9010 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Addendum:

Please do not interpret - as = many have - my points as advocating against letting a fee market ever devel= op(!).

Fees are useful against DoS, increasing cos= t of attack etc.=C2=A0 Further, continuing the artificially-low fee policy = ad infinitum is unsustainable and constitutes a moral hazard.
Examine from the user's point of view.=C2=A0 If you want to= develop a fee market, think it through in the context of user expectation/= experience - which translates to how software is written and users behave, = the context of market disruption, and the context of further block size inc= reases.

Transition to a new economic policy should= be planned.=C2=A0 It should give users and markets time to adjust.

It is grossly irresponsible to simply drop users into a n= ew economic policy with no warning and no preparation.

=

--001a113ed7ead0c00f051b7a9010--