From: odinn <odinn.cyberguerrilla@riseup•net>
To: bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] User vote in blocksize through fees
Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2015 14:59:33 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <557DF945.1060909@riseup.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAJHLa0MA6hoquewGSTcWNabpk5OycCpFuOOykDObEF-1NRXqow@mail.gmail.com>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Notionally, I agree with what I see written here by Jeff, and I
appreciate the thoughtfulness that went into this short post to list.
On 06/14/2015 08:07 AM, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Exactly -- both block size proponents and block size change
> conservatives seem to be glossing over this aspect - much to my
> dismay.
>
> Choosing the size limit is choosing the size of a scarce resource.
> By fiat.
>
> It is wrong to think that a "technical consensus" can choose what
> is best here.
>
> The block size limit defines the scope of a resource for which all
> fee market actors bid. That, in turn, defines who is in the fee
> market and how they behave, what market choices are made.
>
> It doesn't matter how or why the limit was originally enacted, what
> Satoshi meant to do. What matters, economically, is what is. What
> the software and our $3B economy & market knows and sees today. (I
> think some block size change proponents miss this!)
>
> The solution lies in transitioning this size limit to the free
> market. In the end, the users must choose their desired level of
> growth, decentralization, etc. We cannot rely on some dev's idea
> of the proper level of fee, proper level of growth, proper level
> of decentralization.
>
> And IMO, a "floating limit with training wheels" is better and
> stronger for bitcoin's health from a governance, user choice and
> free market perspective than simply "hard fork to 2MB, come back
> again in 6 months."
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 6:34 AM, Benjamin
> <benjamin.l.cordes@gmail•com <mailto:benjamin.l.cordes@gmail•com>>
> wrote:
>
> "The size limit is an economic policy lever that needs to be
> transitioned -away- from software and software developers, to the
> free market."
>
> 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?
>
> On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 12:06 PM, Mats Henricson <mats@henricson•se
> <mailto: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. 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 <mailto: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
> <mailto:jgarzik@bitpay•com>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 1:08 AM, Eric Lombrozo
> <elombrozo@gmail•com <mailto: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?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
- --------
>
>
>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Bitcoin-development mailing list
>>> Bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net
> <mailto:Bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net>
>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
- --------
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
>> Bitcoin-development mailing list
>> Bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net
> <mailto:Bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net>
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
- --------
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net
> <mailto:Bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net>
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>
>
>
>
> -- Jeff Garzik Bitcoin core developer and open source evangelist
> BitPay, Inc. https://bitpay.com/
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
- --------
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>
- --
http://abis.io ~
"a protocol concept to enable decentralization
and expansion of a giving economy, and a new social good"
https://keybase.io/odinn
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJVfflFAAoJEGxwq/inSG8CrWoIAJOsZHTWqdILE0IYmmE50E/S
BcbPJJtjodw1liPVJEybyNUKSgq4Ucw9tuQpMVv3hF8bvug6/6HtxAQCptuIKRSw
WigZyvgm79u474YsPULG+2SltMrOFqmA05jTF9vWo0LBSY4xiMXjT4VwVt9xEcFc
qHW5OUa1QoFZkaOf/jtY+H3a9w8cHZFlroTkf4MaJkaMo81oSRfWz3Mj8wOz6f8z
MSEpvQERzETEcV0SqTBnzsoX8toO1s24a9HejMMfbeD7JAy8EvayFb3G1LNzBNVC
1x/yeLBGnE3Z0P80J0oUR5taLbGJl9+7Hb16rEzxivtZF5FWBdDmvwKBOKJ1Alo=
=ubcH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-06-14 21:59 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 42+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-06-12 18:11 Peter Todd
2015-06-12 18:20 ` Mark Friedenbach
2015-06-12 18:26 ` Matt Whitlock
2015-06-12 18:36 ` Peter Todd
2015-06-12 18:56 ` Jannes Faber
[not found] ` <CABr1YTfowMqgDZoWhDXiM0Bd3dwhVo6++FOvLntGc2HkApEbGw@mail.gmail.com>
2015-06-12 20:04 ` Eric Lombrozo
2015-06-12 23:01 ` Vincent Truong
2015-06-12 23:11 ` Luke Dashjr
2015-06-12 23:23 ` Aaron Gustafson
2015-06-12 18:22 ` Matt Whitlock
2015-06-12 18:34 ` Peter Todd
2015-06-12 18:36 ` Matt Whitlock
2015-06-12 18:39 ` Benjamin
2015-06-12 18:47 ` Peter Todd
2015-06-12 18:44 ` Peter Todd
2015-06-12 18:52 ` Matt Whitlock
2015-06-12 18:54 ` Matt Whitlock
2015-06-12 18:56 ` Aaron Gustafson
2015-06-13 22:20 ` Danny Thorpe
2015-06-13 22:24 ` Eric Lombrozo
2015-06-14 4:55 ` Chun Wang
2015-06-14 4:59 ` Jeff Garzik
2015-06-14 5:08 ` Eric Lombrozo
2015-06-14 5:13 ` Jeff Garzik
2015-06-14 5:20 ` Eric Lombrozo
2015-06-14 5:36 ` Jeff Garzik
2015-06-14 10:06 ` Mats Henricson
2015-06-14 10:34 ` Benjamin
2015-06-14 15:07 ` Jeff Garzik
2015-06-14 21:59 ` odinn [this message]
2015-06-14 20:10 ` Eric Lombrozo
2015-06-14 14:42 ` Jeff Garzik
2015-06-14 22:26 ` Mike Hearn
2015-06-15 3:59 ` Eric Lombrozo
2015-06-14 4:16 ` Stephen
2015-06-14 4:50 ` Eric Lombrozo
2015-06-14 4:56 ` Jeff Garzik
2015-06-14 7:19 ` Ashley Holman
2015-06-13 23:57 Raystonn
2015-06-14 4:28 ` odinn
2015-06-14 5:46 ` Aaron Voisine
2015-06-14 21:38 ` odinn
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=557DF945.1060909@riseup.net \
--to=odinn.cyberguerrilla@riseup$(echo .)net \
--cc=bitcoin-development@lists$(echo .)sourceforge.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox