From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1Z49VW-0005i1-V5 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sun, 14 Jun 2015 15:07:34 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of bitpay.com designates 209.85.218.45 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.218.45; envelope-from=jgarzik@bitpay.com; helo=mail-oi0-f45.google.com; Received: from mail-oi0-f45.google.com ([209.85.218.45]) by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1Z49VV-0007ru-Io for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sun, 14 Jun 2015 15:07:34 +0000 Received: by oiha141 with SMTP id a141so45250352oih.0 for ; Sun, 14 Jun 2015 08:07:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=SRIAio8hI0nZpnEQcF1KX4wIa0fcSWup/tMZPj7p/nM=; b=NfU2AXpfai91OHiQu5CbXyOvqK8D2XIcdLtKuvQ+UVN8nbNAupZsJYTwXqfkgVK3GF Q6eQnCeXUYEVnYYPHHii+kgSW5+SF+A17nP3xOkBVxhsFxYW3xCmpK2TTTE6V+2kwJAQ rWQrjQ52Say7hcOLpABZJce7DGJZtGg/hwTBBWhPIknIn5rxo4/+eF8hDycuJVZT4lcE n2s2eGOKKQAYPrPsGDa8YyQp81HM1KBrCBG7p6QO1h4aVxaSywFDQhTjaFtZLK+WafmC YanPIJttoPVCQCLSCti6AmJ7AsgIFxSjPpcQgJ0kcC+M+czYl67kjt1U2SJv+KORPkEq MtFw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkCw3oCad1w0pdHpfYMB+K1BNAXn0UnHRobyqMDAlWGWKchjjSRUYFe9pOUmWxSHcgGldDk X-Received: by 10.202.69.130 with SMTP id s124mr18986132oia.70.1434294448115; Sun, 14 Jun 2015 08:07:28 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.202.108.149 with HTTP; Sun, 14 Jun 2015 08:07:06 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <20150612181153.GB19199@muck> <3BB36FC7-9212-42A1-A756-A66929C15D4F@gmail.com> <04527D50-0118-4E74-8226-3E29B29CC7D8@gmail.com> <557D5239.1070105@henricson.se> From: Jeff Garzik Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2015 11:07:06 -0400 Message-ID: To: Benjamin , Gavin Andresen , Gregory Maxwell , Pieter Wuille , Wladimir van der Laan Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113ddd2e156a4205187bb392 X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for sender-domain -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature X-Headers-End: 1Z49VV-0007ru-Io Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] User vote in blocksize through fees X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2015 15:07:35 -0000 --001a113ddd2e156a4205187bb392 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Exactly -- both block size proponents and block size change conservatives seem to be glossing over this aspect - much to my dismay. Choosing the size limit is choosing the size of a scarce resource. By fiat= . It is wrong to think that a "technical consensus" can choose what is best here. The block size limit defines the scope of a resource for which all fee market actors bid. That, in turn, defines who is in the fee market and how they behave, what market choices are made. It doesn't matter how or why the limit was originally enacted, what Satoshi meant to do. What matters, economically, is what is. What the software and our $3B economy & market knows and sees today. (I think some block size change proponents miss this!) The solution lies in transitioning this size limit to the free market. In the end, the users must choose their desired level of growth, decentralization, etc. We cannot rely on some dev's idea of the proper level of fee, proper level of growth, proper level of decentralization. And IMO, a "floating limit with training wheels" is better and stronger for bitcoin's health from a governance, user choice and free market perspective than simply "hard fork to 2MB, come back again in 6 months." On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 6:34 AM, Benjamin wrote: > "The size limit is an economic policy lever that needs to be > transitioned -away- from software and software developers, to the free > market." > > Exactly right. Bitcoin does not have a free market for fee though, and > literally all the discussion so far has neglected some fundamental > aspect of this, as you described. It's not at all a "technical" or > "engineering" decision. It's the question of how to potentially > re-design a fundamental part of Bitcoin, and the proposals so far > don't address this. What is the price of the scarce resource of the > blockchain and the mechanism to decide on price, once the subsidy runs > out? > > On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 12:06 PM, Mats Henricson > wrote: > > Jeff, > > > > with all due respect, but I've seen you saying this a few times > > now, that this decision is oh so difficult and important. > > > > But this is not helpful. We all know that. Even I. > > > > Make a suggestion, or stay out of the debate! > > > > Mats > > > > On 06/14/2015 07:36 AM, Jeff Garzik wrote: > >> The choice is very real and on-point. What should the block size limi= t > >> be? Why? > >> > >> There is a large consensus that it needs increasing. To what? By wha= t > >> factor? > >> > >> The size limit literally defines the fee market, the whole damn thing. > If > >> software high priests choose a size limit of 300k, space is scarce, fe= es > >> are bid high. If software high priests choose a size limit of 32mb, > space > >> is plentiful, fees are near zero. Market actors take their signals > >> accordingly. Some business models boom, some business models fail, as= a > >> direct result of changing this unintentionally-added speedbump. > Different > >> users value adoption, decentralization etc. differently. > >> > >> The size limit is an economic policy lever that needs to be transition= ed > >> -away- from software and software developers, to the free market. > >> > >> A simple, e.g. hard fork to 2MB or 4MB does not fix higher level > governance > >> problems associated with actors lobbying developers, even if a > cloistered > >> and vetted Technical Advisory Board as has been proposed. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 1:20 AM, Eric Lombrozo > wrote: > >> > >>> I definitely think we need some voting system for metaconsensus=E2=80= =A6but if > >>> we=E2=80=99re going to seriously consider this we should look at the = problem > much > >>> more generally. Using false choices doesn=E2=80=99t really help, thou= gh ;) > >>> > >>> - Eric Lombrozo > >>> > >>> > >>> On Jun 13, 2015, at 10:13 PM, Jeff Garzik wrote: > >>> > >>> On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 1:08 AM, Eric Lombrozo > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>>> 2) BIP100 has direct economic consequences=E2=80=A6and particularly = for > miners. > >>>> It lends itself to much greater corruptibility. > >>>> > >>>> > >>> What is the alternative? Have a Chief Scientist or Technical Advisor= y > >>> Board choose what is a proper fee, what is a proper level of > >>> decentralization, a proper growth factor? > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > -------------------------------------------------------------------------= ----- > >> > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Bitcoin-development mailing list > >> Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net > >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development > >> > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------= ----- > > _______________________________________________ > > Bitcoin-development mailing list > > Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------= ----- > _______________________________________________ > Bitcoin-development mailing list > Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development > --=20 Jeff Garzik Bitcoin core developer and open source evangelist BitPay, Inc. https://bitpay.com/ --001a113ddd2e156a4205187bb392 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Exactly -- both block size proponents and block size chang= e conservatives seem to be glossing over this aspect - much to my dismay.
Choosing the size limit is choosing the size of a scarce = resource.=C2=A0 By fiat.

It is wrong to think that= a "technical consensus" can choose what is best here.
=
The block size limit defines the scope of a resource for whi= ch all fee market actors bid.=C2=A0 That, in turn, defines who is in the fe= e market and how they behave, what market choices are made.

<= /div>
It doesn't matter how or why the limit was originally enacted= , what Satoshi meant to do.=C2=A0 What matters, economically, is what is.= =C2=A0 What the software and our $3B economy & market knows and sees to= day. =C2=A0(I think some block size change proponents miss this!)

The solution lies in transitioning this size limit to the f= ree market.=C2=A0 In the end, the users must choose their desired level of = growth, decentralization, etc.=C2=A0 We cannot rely on some dev's idea = of the proper level of fee, proper level of growth, proper level of decentr= alization.

And IMO, a "floating limit with tr= aining wheels" is better and stronger for bitcoin's health from a = governance, user choice and free market perspective than simply "hard = fork to 2MB, come back again in 6 months."





<= div class=3D"gmail_extra">
On Sun, Jun 14, 20= 15 at 6:34 AM, Benjamin <benjamin.l.cordes@gmail.com> wrote:
"The siz= e limit is an economic policy lever that needs to be
transitioned -away- from software and software developers, to the free
market."

Exactly right. Bitcoin does not have a free market for fee though, a= nd
literally all the discussion so far has neglected some fundamental
aspect of this, as you described. It's not at all a "technical&quo= t; or
"engineering" decision. It's the question of how to potential= ly
re-design a fundamental part of Bitcoin, and the proposals so far
don't address this. What is the price of the scarce resource of the
blockchain and the mechanism to decide on price, once the subsidy runs
out?

On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 12:06 PM, Mats Henricson <mats@henricson.se> wrote:
> Jeff,
>
> with all due respect, but I've seen you saying this a few times > now, that this decision is oh so difficult and important.
>
> But this is not helpful. We all know that. Even I.
>
> Make a suggestion, or stay out of the debate!
>
> Mats
>
> On 06/14/2015 07:36 AM, Jeff Garzik wrote:
>> The choice is very real and on-point.=C2=A0 What should the block = size limit
>> be?=C2=A0 Why?
>>
>> There is a large consensus that it needs increasing.=C2=A0 To what= ?=C2=A0 By what
>> factor?
>>
>> The size limit literally defines the fee market, the whole damn th= ing.=C2=A0 If
>> software high priests choose a size limit of 300k, space is scarce= , fees
>> are bid high.=C2=A0 If software high priests choose a size limit o= f 32mb, space
>> is plentiful, fees are near zero.=C2=A0 Market actors take their s= ignals
>> accordingly.=C2=A0 Some business models boom, some business models= fail, as a
>> direct result of changing this unintentionally-added speedbump.=C2= =A0 Different
>> users value adoption, decentralization etc. differently.
>>
>> The size limit is an economic policy lever that needs to be transi= tioned
>> -away- from software and software developers, to the free market.<= br> >>
>> A simple, e.g. hard fork to 2MB or 4MB does not fix higher level g= overnance
>> problems associated with actors lobbying developers, even if a clo= istered
>> and vetted Technical Advisory Board as has been proposed.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 1:20 AM, Eric Lombrozo <elombrozo@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I definitely think we need some voting system for metaconsensu= s=E2=80=A6but if
>>> we=E2=80=99re going to seriously consider this we should look = at the problem much
>>> more generally. Using false choices doesn=E2=80=99t really hel= p, though ;)
>>>
>>> - Eric Lombrozo
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jun 13, 2015, at 10:13 PM, Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@bitpay.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 1:08 AM, Eric Lombrozo <elombrozo@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> 2) BIP100 has direct economic consequences=E2=80=A6and par= ticularly for miners.
>>>> It lends itself to much greater corruptibility.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> What is the alternative?=C2=A0 Have a Chief Scientist or Techn= ical Advisory
>>> Board choose what is a proper fee, what is a proper level of >>> decentralization, a proper growth factor?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------= ------------
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Bitcoin-development mailing list
>> Bitco= in-development@lists.sourceforge.net
>> https://lists.sourceforge.n= et/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-d= evelopment@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/l= ists/listinfo/bitcoin-development

---------------------------------------------------------------------------= ---
_______________________________________________
Bitcoin-development mailing list
Bitcoin-develo= pment@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/= listinfo/bitcoin-development



--
=
Jeff Garzik
Bitcoin core developer and op= en source evangelist
BitPay, Inc. =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0https://bitpay.com/
--001a113ddd2e156a4205187bb392--