From: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@gmail•com>
To: Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail•com>
Cc: Bitcoin development mailing list <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Block size: It's economics & user preparation & moral hazard
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 00:11:48 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CADm_WcbrMyk-=OnQ-3UvnF_8brhn+X2NqRPbo5xUXsbcZpc0=Q@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAPg+sBi=Mw7UnxG1-0-0ZTRqxrS5+28VmowyYrGP2MAvYiu_pA@mail.gmail.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2688 bytes --]
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.
>
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.
> all. Yes, old full nodes after a soft fork are not able to fully
> validate the rules new miners enforce anymore, but they do still
> verify the rules that their operators opted to enforce. Furthermore,
> they can't be prevented. For that reason, I've proposed, and am
> working hard, on an approach that includes Segregated Witness as a
> first step. It shows the ecosystem that something is being done, it
> kicks the can down the road, it solves/issues half a dozen other
> issues at the same time, and it does not require the degree of
> certainty needed for a hardfork.
>
Segregated Witness does not kick the can, it solves none of the problems
#1, #3 - #8 explicitly defined and listed in email #1.
1) A plan of "SW + no hard fork" is gambling with ECE risk, gambling there
will be no Fee Event, because the core block size is still heavily
contended -- 100% contended at time out SW rollout.
2) We are only 100% certain that bitcoin works in the
blocks-not-full-on-avg state, where there is a healthy buffer between the
hard limit and the average block size.
There is remains major ECE risk due to the core block size freeze, possibly
pushing the system into a new, untried economic state and causing major
market and actor disruption. Users of the Service can still drift randomly
and unpredictably into a Fee Event.
SW mitigates this
- only after several months
- only assuming robust adoption rates by up-layer ecosystem software, and
- only assuming transaction volume growth is flat or sub-linear
Those conditions *must* go as planned to fulfill "SW kicked the can" -- a
lot of if's.
As stated, SW is orthogonal to the drift-into-uncharted-waters problem
outlined in email #1, which a short term bump does address.
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 4393 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-12-18 5:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 31+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-12-16 14:53 Jeff Garzik
2015-12-16 18:34 ` Pieter Wuille
2015-12-16 21:08 ` Jeff Garzik
2015-12-16 21:11 ` Pieter Wuille
2015-12-17 2:06 ` Jameson Lopp
2015-12-17 16:58 ` Tier Nolan
2015-12-17 19:44 ` Peter Todd
2015-12-18 5:23 ` Jorge Timón
2015-12-18 9:44 ` Tier Nolan
2015-12-16 21:24 ` Jorge Timón
2015-12-16 21:36 ` Jeff Garzik
2015-12-18 5:11 ` Jeff Garzik [this message]
2015-12-18 7:56 ` Pieter Wuille
2015-12-18 10:13 ` sickpig
2015-12-18 15:48 ` Pieter Wuille
2015-12-19 19:04 ` Dave Scotese
[not found] ` <751DFAA9-9013-4C54-BC1E-5F7ECB7469CC@gmail.com>
2015-12-26 16:44 ` Pieter Wuille
2015-12-26 17:20 ` Jorge Timón
2015-12-26 22:55 ` Jonathan Toomim
2015-12-26 23:01 ` Pieter Wuille
2015-12-26 23:07 ` Jonathan Toomim
2015-12-26 23:16 ` Pieter Wuille
2015-12-27 0:03 ` Jonathan Toomim
2015-12-26 23:15 ` Justus Ranvier
2015-12-27 0:13 ` Bryan Bishop
2015-12-27 0:33 ` Justus Ranvier
2015-12-18 13:56 ` Jeff Garzik
2015-12-23 6:26 ` Aaron Voisine
2015-12-16 18:36 ` jl2012
2015-12-16 22:27 ` Jeff Garzik
2015-12-17 6:12 ` Dave Scotese
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_WcbrMyk-=OnQ-3UvnF_8brhn+X2NqRPbo5xUXsbcZpc0=Q@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