On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 2:56 AM, Pieter Wuille wrote: > On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 6:11 AM, Jeff Garzik wrote: > >> 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. > > > > Diverging from the satoshi block size change plan[1] and current > economics > > would seem to require a high level of months-ahead communication to > users. > > I don't see any plan, but will you say the same thing when the subsidy > Yes, I forgot the link: [1] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1347.msg15366#msg15366 > dwindles, and mining income seems to become uncertain? It will equally > be an economic change, which equally well will have been predictable, > and it will equally well be treatable with a hardfork to increase the > subsidy. > That is a red herring. Nobody I know has proposed this, and I am opposed to changing that fundamental. It is well known that the 1M limit was never intended to stay, unlike 21M coin limit etc. 1M was set high in the beginning because it is a DoS engineering limit, not an [accidental] economic policy tool. > But I am not against a block size increase hard fork. My talk on > segregated witness even included proposed pursuing a hard fork at a > slightly later stage. > Great! > But what you're arguing for is that - despite being completely > expected - blocks grew fuller, and people didn't adapt to block size > pressure and a fee market, so the Core committee now needs to kick the > can down the road, because we can't accept the risk of economic > change. That sounds very much like a bailout to me. > I am arguing for continuing what we know works. We are 100% certain blocks-not-full-on-avg works, where a "buffer" of space exists between avg block size and hard limit. Any other avenue is by definition speculation and risk. You _think_ you know what a healthy fee market _should_ be. Massive damage occurs to bitcoin if you are wrong - and I listed several vis expectation, there is clear consensus and expectation that block size would increase, from 2010 onward. It was always a question of _when_ not if. Sticking with 1M presents clear risk of (a) economic fracture and (b) community fracture. It quite clearly risks massive change to an unknown system at an unknown, unpredictable date in the future. BIP 102 presents an expected upgrade at a predictable date in the future.