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-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1Z4EF2-0007t6-PE for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sun, 14 Jun 2015 20:10:52 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.220.51 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.220.51; envelope-from=elombrozo@gmail.com; helo=mail-pa0-f51.google.com; Received: from mail-pa0-f51.google.com ([209.85.220.51]) by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1Z4EF1-0000nC-7r for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sun, 14 Jun 2015 20:10:52 +0000 Received: by pabqy3 with SMTP id qy3so51926792pab.3 for ; Sun, 14 Jun 2015 13:10:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.68.205.33 with SMTP id ld1mr42597441pbc.22.1434312645525; Sun, 14 Jun 2015 13:10:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.102] (cpe-76-167-237-202.san.res.rr.com. [76.167.237.202]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id ow6sm9925876pbc.59.2015.06.14.13.10.43 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sun, 14 Jun 2015 13:10:43 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2098\)) Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_D5CFBDF8-2FDC-4E26-B354-FDA9F82B36F7"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512 X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.5b6 From: Eric Lombrozo In-Reply-To: Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2015 13:10:41 -0700 Message-Id: References: <20150612181153.GB19199@muck> <3BB36FC7-9212-42A1-A756-A66929C15D4F@gmail.com> <04527D50-0118-4E74-8226-3E29B29CC7D8@gmail.com> <557D5239.1070105@henricson.se> To: Benjamin X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2098) X-Spam-Score: -1.4 (-) 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 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (elombrozo[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record -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 0.2 AWL AWL: Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address X-Headers-End: 1Z4EF1-0000nC-7r 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 20:10:52 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_D5CFBDF8-2FDC-4E26-B354-FDA9F82B36F7 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > On Jun 14, 2015, at 3:34 AM, Benjamin = wrote: >=20 > "The size limit is an economic policy lever that needs to be > transitioned -away- from software and software developers, to the free > market." >=20 > 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? >=20 In addition, fees are complicated by the fact that they are used as an = anti-spam measure for relay nodes=E2=80=A6who don=E2=80=99t see ANY = direct compensation whatsoever for providing that service. So we really = have two different fees being tacked on=E2=80=A6but the miners get to = keep all of it=E2=80=A6and the relay fee is being hard coded into the = software. Fee calculation heuristics for wallets are already far from trivial - = this is another issue that needs to be addressed. - Eric Lombrozo > On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 12:06 PM, Mats Henricson = wrote: >> Jeff, >>=20 >> with all due respect, but I've seen you saying this a few times >> now, that this decision is oh so difficult and important. >>=20 >> But this is not helpful. We all know that. Even I. >>=20 >> Make a suggestion, or stay out of the debate! >>=20 >> Mats >>=20 >> 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? >>>=20 >>> There is a large consensus that it needs increasing. To what? By = what >>> factor? >>>=20 >>> 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. >>>=20 >>> The size limit is an economic policy lever that needs to be = transitioned >>> -away- from software and software developers, to the free market. >>>=20 >>> 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. >>>=20 >>>=20 >>>=20 >>>=20 >>>=20 >>>=20 >>>=20 >>> On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 1:20 AM, Eric Lombrozo = wrote: >>>=20 >>>> 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, = though ;) >>>>=20 >>>> - Eric Lombrozo >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>> On Jun 13, 2015, at 10:13 PM, Jeff Garzik = wrote: >>>>=20 >>>> On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 1:08 AM, Eric Lombrozo = >>>> wrote: >>>>=20 >>>>> 2) BIP100 has direct economic consequences=E2=80=A6and = particularly for miners. >>>>> It lends itself to much greater corruptibility. >>>>>=20 >>>>>=20 >>>> 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 >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>=20 >>>=20 >>>=20 >>>=20 >>> = --------------------------------------------------------------------------= ---- >>>=20 >>>=20 >>>=20 >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Bitcoin-development mailing list >>> Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net >>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development >>>=20 >>=20 >> = --------------------------------------------------------------------------= ---- >> _______________________________________________ >> Bitcoin-development mailing list >> Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development >=20 > = --------------------------------------------------------------------------= ---- > _______________________________________________ > Bitcoin-development mailing list > Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development --Apple-Mail=_D5CFBDF8-2FDC-4E26-B354-FDA9F82B36F7 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJVfd/BAAoJEJNAI64YFENUIxQQAL79IdnDBgdYrZ8zSuSVx70A NWtJfAanOLLlT4fd1tRLVisxTFpBAh2d+Akwk1g78fkCBDwiDn4H9olqPKGeaQpt x6VIWq8+djfRPRnExnYthQknKBx0oYZJjAAGN/HyzugXv/AJCTtbQ9LENEFBmyMj Y42IIRn8rHJBkGAsj7Cb98q/qW7+/SZw6d/77Z/DgOqTtyIk1dMuFujeR4d6wSwJ iHvUFNUnkUDjJjwdtNOg2f+Y51Qn0f6y/8A1VOLnffGa5A2FNaeedNwI5/m8oyUn NO2eBlHWaIA/QKpJdk2WEJlOYuySSGU5wiCS73/JgA+uDMsphpBlMMWGuaWIy5xm Bjc3blHhDZ0IUtuEiHF1l+6wL7q6OqEPAq/q96xp6a713nqpzwDRVz9OwCv78yvo e9hQNoSQeoJiEX1Ff3DSOD3pFScPkTvbH3Qftov7THjKTsOgx46bWjTFmFheYYUC rxlgvjL04Gq8ZPFWwFVd34DRFgOqdWw3l9YfcnZIbl+XVq1JRT/KOItAA2KK4/1H 6RzCsm8cP4805eUnpINUfTVprZxxsm0e7NDr6jJc4ZxjPi8zkVthk5EceaU5GKsw /oBzgqmiPHxaGBsq6j087PvpR8U9noPETpWwcEHpzORLDeKeykhBzxsLYC4Quzku aGxEkmzhJEl7zuj/4v1w =kr99 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_D5CFBDF8-2FDC-4E26-B354-FDA9F82B36F7--