The choice is very real and on-point.  What should the block size limit be?  Why?

There is a large consensus that it needs increasing.  To what?  By what 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, fees 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 transitioned -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 <elombrozo@gmail.com> wrote:
I definitely think we need some voting system for metaconsensus…but if we’re going to seriously consider this we should look at the problem much more generally. Using false choices doesn’t really help, 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…and particularly for miners. It lends itself to much greater corruptibility.


What is the alternative?  Have a Chief Scientist or Technical Advisory Board choose what is a proper fee, what is a proper level of decentralization, a proper growth factor?




--
Jeff Garzik
Bitcoin core developer and open source evangelist
BitPay, Inc.      https://bitpay.com/