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 3AE98DE9 for ; Wed, 16 Dec 2015 21:11:53 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-ig0-f174.google.com (mail-ig0-f174.google.com [209.85.213.174]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D8642141 for ; Wed, 16 Dec 2015 21:11:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ig0-f174.google.com with SMTP id to18so67070951igc.0 for ; Wed, 16 Dec 2015 13:11:52 -0800 (PST) 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=yb1qVwdMh19vQyet/xUqjWV226C62q26CMvAEkgDOoU=; b=FItR+pYyPkntxrVnRe50xi9epKn4zNMyRCLWlaUXXYXgjxHUpU7iu55HkVMgIS9S6s p06MExpxDdvIyPxNi2pbbOVlsELGU6AZq8K6Bl46NV6YdFTI0NekR9drblpwvhUhOm7q lNbjvZD+wvnDStTeiT1hBmb2p+xYvhN0rSP68beKW75WjKfgj45feisRNUT+noMb9mi3 hIScXok+pkM0paYUy1MUZFArSgdOrTrxBco6znQPHkYsRUUIPkJKdayE5BrAyNz1fgkL F42iRDKenWhAarcOFxoLJOAqhDy3RRMDBKVkCnJMZfOGxwqyUml0a9210JQjW4CBXNIX Myrw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.107.168.5 with SMTP id r5mr25666428ioe.126.1450300312319; Wed, 16 Dec 2015 13:11:52 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.36.80.6 with HTTP; Wed, 16 Dec 2015 13:11:52 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 22:11:52 +0100 Message-ID: From: Pieter Wuille To: Jeff Garzik Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, 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 development mailing list Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Block size: It's economics & user preparation & moral hazard 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, 16 Dec 2015 21:11:53 -0000 On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 10:08 PM, Jeff Garzik wrote: >> You present this as if the Bitcoin Core development team is in charge >> of deciding the network consensus rules, and is responsible for making >> changes to it in order to satisfy economic demand. If that is the >> case, Bitcoin has failed, in my opinion. > > > This circles back to Problem #1: Avoidance of a choice is a still a choice > - failing to ACK a MAX_BLOCK_SIZE increase still creates very real Economic > Change Event risk. We are not avoiding a choice. We don't have the authority to make a choice. > And #3: If the likely predicted course is that Bitcoin Core will not accept > a protocol change changing MAX_BLOCK_SIZE via hard fork in the short term, > the core dev team should communicate that position clearly to users and > media. I indeed think we can communicate much better that deciding consensus rules is not within our power. -- Pieter