On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 1:34 PM, Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 3:53 PM, Jeff Garzik via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> 2) If block size stays at 1M, the Bitcoin Core developer team should sign a
> collective note stating their desire to transition to a new economic policy,
> that of "healthy fee market" and strongly urge users to examine their fee
> policies, wallet software, transaction volumes and other possible User
> impacting outcomes.

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.

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.

Hitting a Fee Event is market changing, potentially reshuffling economic actors to a notable degree. Maintaining a short term economic policy of fixed 1M supply in the face of rising transaction volume carries risks that should be analyzed and communicated.