From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1Z497V-0004Yq-W4 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sun, 14 Jun 2015 14:42:46 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of bitpay.com designates 209.85.214.172 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.214.172; envelope-from=jgarzik@bitpay.com; helo=mail-ob0-f172.google.com; Received: from mail-ob0-f172.google.com ([209.85.214.172]) by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1Z497U-0006wO-4J for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sun, 14 Jun 2015 14:42:45 +0000 Received: by obbgp2 with SMTP id gp2so49107283obb.2 for ; Sun, 14 Jun 2015 07:42:38 -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=vdhcd+ZSQVrBk/RfELq/V68nfCqc6gEd7he6TcTbVs8=; b=MNX9cdAJ6wOuTws4EK4O4ilyZGV4zkUo6l2a1l22WtmkLiXCSaXptZk+NauEuNXwO5 isR1mcje1HSvxoyU4SdfZaijfqNmYBvagELDfm7ZLZ1EG3AkEbT2graJf1voBR2iNleO YTSosJPk52HkWSA1wR86+yfwpMmchG2Mfv19xN0WkDuZIY362C4Z3FyMdwEBb401V5Rn 5dHnTjdelrvrTeHeDvbOEY2JDE3ArHG/00NnlHne2aseSHr4pB832shIDYdn+YskeA1R p8Y87lqEsJBOgn9UrwJFv6OCtNTXdcg08jX0Cy41s71ueg2g7+rNZpNEkc+wWOga8co4 2SWA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQk9zyapG3nhRvDG6aOPBANSgZEXcgz6CaVEByGfebv7YVzBJtV5PPBDuCFc0C4zmOkT+dbN X-Received: by 10.202.83.83 with SMTP id h80mr18796755oib.56.1434292958550; Sun, 14 Jun 2015 07:42:38 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.202.108.149 with HTTP; Sun, 14 Jun 2015 07:42:17 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <557D5239.1070105@henricson.se> 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 10:42:17 -0400 Message-ID: To: Mats Henricson Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113b0a084c771a05187b5aec 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: 1Z497U-0006wO-4J 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 14:42:46 -0000 --001a113b0a084c771a05187b5aec Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Since you missed it, here is the suggestion again: http://gtf.org/garzik/bitcoin/BIP100-blocksizechangeproposal.pdf On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 6:06 AM, 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 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, fee= s > > 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 transitione= d > > -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 cloister= ed > > 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 p= roblem > much > >> more generally. Using false choices doesn=E2=80=99t really help, thoug= h ;) > >> > >> - 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 f= or 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? > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------= ----- > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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/ --001a113b0a084c771a05187b5aec Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Since you missed it, here is the suggestion again:=C2=A0= http://gtf.org/garzik/bitcoin/BIP100-blocksizechangeproposal.pdf

On = Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 6:06 AM, 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 thing.= =C2=A0 If
> software high priests choose a size limit of 300k, space is scarce, fe= es
> are bid high.=C2=A0 If software high priests choose a size limit of 32= mb, space
> is plentiful, fees are near zero.=C2=A0 Market actors take their signa= ls
> accordingly.=C2=A0 Some business models boom, some business models fai= l, 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 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 gover= nance
> problems associated with actors lobbying developers, even if a cloiste= red
> 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=E2= =80=A6but if
>> we=E2=80=99re going to seriously consider this we should look at t= he problem much
>> more generally. Using false choices doesn=E2=80=99t really help, t= hough ;)
>>
>> - 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 particu= larly for miners.
>>> It lends itself to much greater corruptibility.
>>>
>>>
>> What is the alternative?=C2=A0 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?
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------= ------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/
--001a113b0a084c771a05187b5aec--