From: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@gmail•com>
To: Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail•com>
Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] The need for larger blocks
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2015 11:05:30 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CADm_WcYKkrPO-9tiz8d2FFeLk4K7gSgVJG+4PXysi+n8LtXkYw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAPg+sBiPH_j+FJRuvBG6yWbPkC8-4gnC3UrJgw15apfB+DBxAw@mail.gmail.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2185 bytes --]
On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 8:24 AM, Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail•com>
wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 5:22 PM, Milly Bitcoin <milly@bitcoins•info>
> wrote:
>
>> >None of this is a reason why the size can't increase. However, in my
>> opinion, we should do it because we believe it increases utility and
>> understand the risks; not because we're afraid of what might happen if we
>> don't hurry up. And from that point of view, it seems silly to make a huge
>> increase at once...
>>
>> Yes. I think people/businesses want some kind of assurance that there is
>> a path to get things done when needed rather than immediate changes. Since
>> there is currently no clear path/schedule to get any changes accomplished
>> they gets anxious.
>>
>
> I think you just proved my point by saying "when needed".
>
Proposing inaction is not the way you convince people that bitcoin can
scale.
People and businesses cannot perform any capacity planning and future
projections under the proposal of "economic change through inaction."
There will be no growth, by your argument, until there is fee pressure.
And what happens then?
a) Block size limit increases, disrupting and rebooting the fee market.
or
b) You argue that fees have taken care of the capacity.
Waiting until blocks are full before taking action produces even more
disruption and market-unpredictable behavior than today.
I understand you want a fee market to develop, and increasing the block
size limit retards/prevents that. The fact remains that that is a _major_
change to economic policy that creates a _more_ unpredictable system.
Who knows when Pieter will agree that a fee market is healthy? And at that
time, once blocks are full, changing the block size limit then will produce
even more disruption, going from
little pressure -> lots of pressure -> little pressure
Inaction produces fee pressure produces volatility. And makes it more
difficult for system users to perform capacity planning.
I see a lot of microscopic fee analysis - economically insignificant for at
least 12 months to come - and very little holistic analysis from people
arguing that inaction is the best course.
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3358 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-06-26 18:05 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 61+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-06-26 14:09 Pieter Wuille
2015-06-26 14:38 ` Venzen Khaosan
2015-06-26 15:22 ` Milly Bitcoin
2015-06-26 15:24 ` Pieter Wuille
2015-06-26 18:05 ` Jeff Garzik [this message]
2015-06-26 18:32 ` Milly Bitcoin
2015-06-26 15:38 ` Tom Harding
2015-06-26 16:22 ` Venzen Khaosan
2015-06-26 17:04 ` Tom Harding
2015-06-26 17:55 ` Gavin Andresen
2015-06-26 17:57 ` Jeff Garzik
2015-06-26 18:12 ` Pieter Wuille
2015-06-26 18:23 ` Jeff Garzik
2015-06-26 18:31 ` Mark Friedenbach
2015-06-26 19:05 ` Aaron Voisine
2015-06-26 18:34 ` Pieter Wuille
2015-06-26 19:18 ` Ross Nicoll
2015-06-26 19:36 ` Peter Todd
2015-06-27 6:13 ` Filipe Farinha
2015-06-27 7:14 ` Aaron Voisine
2015-06-27 15:13 ` Peter Todd
2015-06-27 19:40 ` Aaron Voisine
2015-06-26 18:47 ` Patrick Strateman
2015-06-26 19:03 ` Tier Nolan
2015-06-26 19:12 ` Mark Friedenbach
2015-06-26 20:44 ` Owen Gunden
2015-06-27 2:18 ` Eric Lombrozo
2015-06-27 2:54 ` Eric Lombrozo
2015-06-27 8:16 ` Venzen Khaosan
2015-06-26 18:29 ` Alex Morcos
2015-06-27 7:43 ` Wladimir J. van der Laan
2015-06-27 9:55 ` NxtChg
2015-06-27 10:04 ` Wladimir J. van der Laan
2015-06-27 10:29 ` NxtChg
2015-06-27 11:04 ` Jorge Timón
2015-06-27 11:18 ` Eric Lombrozo
2015-06-27 11:43 ` Jorge Timón
2015-06-27 12:10 ` NxtChg
2015-06-28 12:13 ` Jorge Timón
2015-06-28 13:51 ` Ivan Brightly
2015-06-28 14:13 ` Eric Lombrozo
2015-06-28 14:16 ` Eric Lombrozo
2015-06-28 14:22 ` Ivan Brightly
2015-06-28 15:05 ` Jorge Timón
2015-06-28 16:01 ` Ivan Brightly
2015-06-28 15:28 ` s7r
2015-06-28 15:45 ` Jorge Timón
2015-06-27 10:19 ` Venzen Khaosan
2015-06-27 19:55 ` Aaron Voisine
2015-06-28 16:37 ` Venzen Khaosan
2015-06-28 20:56 ` Aaron Voisine
2015-06-27 10:13 ` Jorge Timón
2015-06-27 12:09 ` Wladimir J. van der Laan
2015-06-27 12:15 ` NxtChg
2015-06-27 12:17 ` Greg Sanders
2015-06-27 12:25 ` NxtChg
2015-06-27 12:35 ` Greg Sanders
2015-06-27 12:25 ` Wladimir J. van der Laan
2015-06-27 12:50 ` NxtChg
2015-06-27 13:01 ` Wladimir J. van der Laan
2015-06-28 12:03 ` Jorge Timón
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=CADm_WcYKkrPO-9tiz8d2FFeLk4K7gSgVJG+4PXysi+n8LtXkYw@mail.gmail.com \
--to=jgarzik@gmail$(echo .)com \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=pieter.wuille@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