From: "Jorge Timón" <jtimon@jtimon•cc>
To: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@gmail•com>
Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin Core and hard forks
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 14:17:14 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CABm2gDq3JyZx0QCRDbcNSLSOBKdpi4h_7VN1XL8N42U38+eBAA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CADm_WcYCUHs9Qe_T6WJOCUSK6stXYD8v6z5JcGHfRMURoOSFTA@mail.gmail.com>
On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 8:24 PM, Jeff Garzik via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> To the user, talk of a fee market is equivalent to talk about block size -
> various opinions are tossed about, but it doesn't really impact them. Fees
> have been low for 6 years.
>
> We see this with the actual data - no fee pressure on average for the
> entirety of bitcoin's history. We see this with the recent stress tests,
> which exposed dumb wallet behavior WRT fees. Users -and software- had the
> expectation
That's because demand for space (transactions) was always lower than
the supply (block space) and no market price (fees) arose.
Now the market (not the supply) has changed: demand has increased.
With a fixed supply, it was perfectly reasonable to expect that fees
would rise (from zero).
If the user expectation is that a price would never arise because
supply is going to be increased ad infinitum and they will always be
able to send fast in-chain bitcoin transactions for free, just like
breath air (an abundant resource) for free, then we should change that
expectation as soon as possible.
> Remember, this is not a judgement on whether or not fee market/pressure
> should exist. It is simply a factual observation that users/market have not
> experienced this new economic policy.
It is not a new economic policy, it is a new market situation. Please,
stop saying that.
> That opens the question - why now? Why make bitcoin growth more expensive
> at this time in its young life? Many smart people would prefer that bitcoin
> continue to grow, rather than making the system more expensive to use right
> now.
If "not now", then when?
I've been asking that question repeatedly and the closest to an answer
that I got from the "not now side" was "the hashrate being paid by
fees instead of subsidy it's too far away in the future to worry about
it now".
That answer is not very satisfying to me.
> Choosing "let a fee market develop" -- today -- is picking economic sides,
> picking winners & losers in the market.
Yes, business plans that rely on free in-chain transactions may fail,
business plans that are planning for a future with fees and without
subsidies may get the advantage they deserve. But "kicking the can" is
just picking winners and losers in opposite way.
You seem to imply that rewarding inertia and laziness is the best
option for short-term bitcoin adoption and you may be right.
I simply think these arguments shouldn't be considered at all: the
criteria for the consensus block size should be purely based on
technological capacity (propagation benchmarking, etc) and
centralization concerns (those in the "not now side" have already seen
this 2-year-old video[1], right?).
But it seems to me that the "not now side" has no centralization
concerns at all and their true position is "not ever hit the blocksize
limit", that's the only explanation I can find to their lack of
answers to the "when do you think we should allow users to notice that
there's a limit in the blocksize to guarantee that the system can be
decentralized?". I've even read that the consensus limit "was just a
temporary measure". Then Gavin lowers his 32 GB limit to an 8 GB
"compromise".
Maybe I'm being paranoid, but I'm really afraid that when the "not
now side" wins this battle (like they've won for 6 years, as you say)
they will simply advance the front and start another battle, because
their true hidden faction is the "not ever side".
Please, Jeff, Gavin, Mike, show me that I'm wrong on this point.
Please, answer my question this time.
If "not now", then when?
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZp7UGgBR0I
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-07-23 12:17 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 86+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <CAPg+sBgs-ouEMu=LOVCmOyCGwfM1Ygxooz0shyvAuHDGGZYfJw@mail.gmail.com>
2015-07-22 16:52 ` Pieter Wuille
2015-07-22 17:18 ` Ross Nicoll
2015-07-22 17:32 ` Milly Bitcoin
2015-07-22 18:45 ` Bryan Cheng
2015-07-22 17:33 ` Jeff Garzik
2015-07-22 18:01 ` Jeff Garzik
2015-07-22 18:03 ` Alex Morcos
2015-07-22 18:24 ` Jeff Garzik
2015-07-23 12:17 ` Jorge Timón [this message]
2015-07-23 16:17 ` Tom Harding
2015-07-23 16:28 ` Gavin Andresen
2015-07-23 16:50 ` cipher anthem
2015-07-23 17:14 ` Robert Learney
2015-07-23 18:21 ` Eric Lombrozo
2015-07-23 18:47 ` Jorge Timón
2015-07-23 17:43 ` Eric Lombrozo
2015-07-23 18:10 ` Jameson Lopp
2015-07-23 19:14 ` Eric Lombrozo
2015-07-23 19:35 ` Gavin Andresen
2015-07-23 19:39 ` Eric Lombrozo
2015-07-23 19:51 ` Eric Lombrozo
2015-07-23 19:52 ` Jameson Lopp
2015-07-23 20:26 ` Jorge Timón
2015-07-23 20:52 ` Eric Lombrozo
2015-07-23 23:42 ` Benedict Chan
[not found] ` <42BF7FEB-320F-43BE-B3D9-1D76CB8B9975@gmai>
2015-07-23 23:57 ` Eric Lombrozo
2015-07-24 0:04 ` Eric Lombrozo
2015-07-24 0:20 ` Simon Liu
2015-07-24 0:22 ` Jean-Paul Kogelman
2015-07-24 0:32 ` Eric Lombrozo
2015-07-24 0:38 ` Eric Lombrozo
2015-07-24 0:45 ` Jean-Paul Kogelman
2015-07-24 0:49 ` Jean-Paul Kogelman
2015-07-24 0:53 ` Peter Todd
2015-07-24 1:03 ` Jean-Paul Kogelman
2015-07-24 1:08 ` Eric Lombrozo
2015-07-24 1:25 ` Jean-Paul Kogelman
2015-07-24 1:28 ` Eric Lombrozo
2015-07-24 1:37 ` Eric Lombrozo
2015-07-24 1:42 ` Jean-Paul Kogelman
2015-07-24 1:55 ` Eric Lombrozo
2015-07-24 2:12 ` [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin, Perceptions, and Expectations Raystonn .
2015-07-24 8:48 ` Jonas Schnelli
2015-07-24 9:42 ` Jorge Timón
2015-07-24 14:37 ` Vincent Truong
2015-07-25 2:18 ` gb
2015-07-25 11:22 ` Slurms MacKenzie
2015-07-25 15:04 ` Thomas Kerin
2015-07-24 0:56 ` [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin Core and hard forks Eric Lombrozo
2015-07-24 1:05 ` Jean-Paul Kogelman
2015-07-23 18:12 ` Slurms MacKenzie
2015-07-23 18:57 ` Mike Hearn
2015-07-23 17:51 ` Jorge Timón
2015-07-24 6:30 ` Tom Harding
2015-07-24 9:24 ` Jorge Timón
2015-07-24 22:50 ` Tom Harding
2015-07-28 11:29 ` Jorge Timón
2015-07-28 11:32 ` Jorge Timón
2015-07-28 16:44 ` Tom Harding
2015-07-28 17:33 ` Jorge Timón
2015-07-22 19:17 ` Eric Lombrozo
2015-07-22 21:43 ` Mike Hearn
2015-07-22 21:56 ` Eric Lombrozo
2015-07-22 22:01 ` Mike Hearn
2015-07-22 22:09 ` Eric Lombrozo
2015-07-23 1:53 ` Eric Lombrozo
2015-07-22 22:30 ` Jeff Garzik
2015-07-23 0:27 ` Tom Harding
2015-07-23 0:37 ` Eric Lombrozo
2015-07-23 4:40 ` Edmund Edgar
2015-07-27 12:08 ` Peter Todd
2015-07-27 12:44 ` Milly Bitcoin
2015-07-22 22:40 Raystonn
2015-07-22 23:42 ` Cory Fields
2015-07-22 23:53 ` Eric Lombrozo
2015-07-23 0:05 ` Cory Fields
2015-07-23 0:13 ` Eric Lombrozo
2015-07-23 0:34 ` Cory Fields
2015-07-23 0:43 ` Eric Lombrozo
2015-07-23 7:24 ` Ross Nicoll
2015-07-23 0:49 ` Eric Voskuil
2015-07-23 18:12 ` Jorge Timón
[not found] <BA7ACCE1-81B2-4AC1-B6DD-7A856FD27D52@gmail.com>
2015-07-23 8:24 ` Gareth Williams
2015-07-27 17:05 Alice Larson
2015-07-27 17:22 ` Eric Voskuil
2015-07-28 4:55 ` Wladimir J. van der Laan
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=CABm2gDq3JyZx0QCRDbcNSLSOBKdpi4h_7VN1XL8N42U38+eBAA@mail.gmail.com \
--to=jtimon@jtimon$(echo .)cc \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=jgarzik@gmail$(echo .)com \
/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