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 1Z40bZ-0003zK-8L for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sun, 14 Jun 2015 05:37:13 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of bitpay.com designates 209.85.214.176 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.214.176; envelope-from=jgarzik@bitpay.com; helo=mail-ob0-f176.google.com; Received: from mail-ob0-f176.google.com ([209.85.214.176]) by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1Z40bY-0001mP-7A for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sun, 14 Jun 2015 05:37:13 +0000 Received: by obcej4 with SMTP id ej4so45555452obc.0 for ; Sat, 13 Jun 2015 22:37:06 -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=cHMR+N8L/Sv+6ne3GvZXzaySzIayByGWUXI9Qh4kbEo=; b=aVK9vVMh/+5gcKeBPxkN7/U+kBt1LHCtzZwFLMRuWRaG38aJSeFihiEGXz8cLRaFFS eEmKUdeDzk4QCatYOUlVA+SgkXBWF21AUXAqMSSo14laEv70Hq1U+lfW5bJW+gQHwjRY UhkFzfRCFsQP/tQYASotm4FrwZTjYOhggc5v8Ykh9OB3d/WtvnjM7N8NVEXLuu9+OtlP m6EVDpSFlXt+4tizvuRLVp00qTdmpK5/nRPguMPszzcJ6j0QtWI5V2arTo2VaaRn8j3G DVktpN24Re/vml1Ka+TfLhfZIlLutkj1lHzwqMLSf5ThBEYRbdkVZNhy7wJZKsGzLgbw XsbA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnJrbkFT7vuzwz1woL7p8oIFXd+cQsECKAxQxL4TBw4Le3GEft3QT8WVToda3Dha7/lnWV/ X-Received: by 10.182.87.36 with SMTP id u4mr18702235obz.50.1434260226801; Sat, 13 Jun 2015 22:37:06 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.202.108.149 with HTTP; Sat, 13 Jun 2015 22:36:45 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <04527D50-0118-4E74-8226-3E29B29CC7D8@gmail.com> References: <20150612181153.GB19199@muck> <3BB36FC7-9212-42A1-A756-A66929C15D4F@gmail.com> <04527D50-0118-4E74-8226-3E29B29CC7D8@gmail.com> From: Jeff Garzik Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2015 01:36:45 -0400 Message-ID: To: Eric Lombrozo Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e013d0ddc559949051873bb07 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: 1Z40bY-0001mP-7A 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 05:37:13 -0000 --089e013d0ddc559949051873bb07 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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 wrote: > I definitely think we need some voting system for metaconsensus=E2=80=A6b= ut if > we=E2=80=99re going to seriously consider this we should look at the prob= lem much > more generally. Using false choices doesn=E2=80=99t really help, though ;= ) > > - 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 Advisory > Board choose what is a proper fee, what is a proper level of > decentralization, a proper growth factor? > > > --=20 Jeff Garzik Bitcoin core developer and open source evangelist BitPay, Inc. https://bitpay.com/ --089e013d0ddc559949051873bb07 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
The choice is very real and on-point.=C2=A0 What should th= e block size limit be?=C2=A0 Why?

There is a large conse= nsus that it needs increasing.=C2=A0 To what?=C2=A0 By what factor?

The size limit literally defines the fee market, the whol= e damn thing.=C2=A0 If software high priests choose a size limit of 300k, s= pace is scarce, fees are bid high.=C2=A0 If software high priests choose a = size limit of 32mb, space is plentiful, fees are near zero.=C2=A0 Market ac= tors take their signals accordingly.=C2=A0 Some business models boom, some = business models fail, as a direct result of changing this unintentionally-a= dded speedbump.=C2=A0 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 deve= lopers, to the free market.

A simple, e.g. hard fo= rk to 2MB or 4MB does not fix higher level governance problems associated w= ith actors lobbying developers, even if a cloistered and vetted Technical A= dvisory Board as has been proposed.







On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 1:20 A= M, Eric Lombrozo <elombrozo@gmail.com> wrote:
I definitely thin= k 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 g= enerally. Using false choices doesn=E2=80=99t really help, though ;)

<= span class=3D"HOEnZb">- 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=C2=A0= <elombrozo@gmai= l.com>=C2=A0wrote:
2) BIP100 has direct econom= ic consequences=E2=80=A6and particularly for miners. It lends itself to muc= h greater corruptibility.


What is t= he alternative?=C2=A0 Have a Chief Scientist or Technical Advisory Board ch= oose what is a proper fee, what is a proper level of decentralization, a pr= oper growth factor?




--
Jeff Garzik
Bitcoin core develo= per and open source evangelist
BitPay, Inc. =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0https://bitpay.com/
--089e013d0ddc559949051873bb07--