📅 Original date posted:2015-12-18
📝 Original message:On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 2:56 AM, Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille at gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 6:11 AM, Jeff Garzik <jgarzik at gmail.com> 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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20151218/3a05c528/attachment.html>;
Jeff Garzik [ARCHIVE] /
npub1kf…f3f58
2023-06-07 17:46:24
in reply to nevent1q…kgye
Author Public Key
npub1kf0ppcjaguxekg24yx6smgxlu73qn0k8lm0t2wrqc0scpl7u3sgsmf3f58Published at
2023-06-07 17:46:24Event JSON
{
"id": "a1a322d1d198d018aa89a96a9f098027d0e6206fbe526b1626f070bf453ab443",
"pubkey": "b25e10e25d470d9b215521b50da0dfe7a209bec7fedeb53860c3e180ffdc8c11",
"created_at": 1686159984,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"d58ef5f27c55f40f82225aaaf9d4842ef2ec79260053b36e96980654a30d74c7",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"3603141bcc9bd8e0074aa9b5459fa607294d57f36eddc9fbc28b6c55c551268a",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"a384795310cea1937dda4d01ee8f14ca734b9a7ab60c62114a5656706e15e47f"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-12-18\n📝 Original message:On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 2:56 AM, Pieter Wuille \u003cpieter.wuille at gmail.com\u003e\nwrote:\n\n\u003e On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 6:11 AM, Jeff Garzik \u003cjgarzik at gmail.com\u003e wrote:\n\u003e \u003e\u003e You present this as if the Bitcoin Core development team is in charge\n\u003e \u003e\u003e of deciding the network consensus rules, and is responsible for making\n\u003e \u003e\u003e changes to it in order to satisfy economic demand. If that is the\n\u003e \u003e\u003e case, Bitcoin has failed, in my opinion.\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e Diverging from the satoshi block size change plan[1] and current\n\u003e economics\n\u003e \u003e would seem to require a high level of months-ahead communication to\n\u003e users.\n\u003e\n\u003e I don't see any plan, but will you say the same thing when the subsidy\n\u003e\n\nYes, I forgot the link:\n\n[1] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1347.msg15366#msg15366\n\n\n\n\u003e dwindles, and mining income seems to become uncertain? It will equally\n\u003e be an economic change, which equally well will have been predictable,\n\u003e and it will equally well be treatable with a hardfork to increase the\n\u003e subsidy.\n\u003e\n\nThat is a red herring. Nobody I know has proposed this, and I am opposed\nto changing that fundamental.\n\nIt is well known that the 1M limit was never intended to stay, unlike 21M\ncoin limit etc.\n\n1M was set high in the beginning because it is a DoS engineering limit, not\nan [accidental] economic policy tool.\n\n\n\n\n\u003e But I am not against a block size increase hard fork. My talk on\n\u003e segregated witness even included proposed pursuing a hard fork at a\n\u003e slightly later stage.\n\u003e\n\nGreat!\n\n\n\n\u003e But what you're arguing for is that - despite being completely\n\u003e expected - blocks grew fuller, and people didn't adapt to block size\n\u003e pressure and a fee market, so the Core committee now needs to kick the\n\u003e can down the road, because we can't accept the risk of economic\n\u003e change. That sounds very much like a bailout to me.\n\u003e\n\nI am arguing for continuing what we know works. We are 100% certain\nblocks-not-full-on-avg works, where a \"buffer\" of space exists between avg\nblock size and hard limit.\n\nAny other avenue is by definition speculation and risk. You _think_ you\nknow what a healthy fee market _should_ be. Massive damage occurs to\nbitcoin if you are wrong - and I listed several\n\nvis expectation, there is clear consensus and expectation that block size\nwould increase, from 2010 onward. It was always a question of _when_ not\nif.\n\nSticking with 1M presents clear risk of (a) economic fracture and (b)\ncommunity fracture. It quite clearly risks massive change to an unknown\nsystem at an unknown, unpredictable date in the future.\n\nBIP 102 presents an expected upgrade at a predictable date in the future.\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20151218/3a05c528/attachment.html\u003e",
"sig": "91c4f43a2c635dfce0a0f96b61d33c2742c4ea1ef9a3e69556827e647db7dc48dac6f007aab223322e462ae7a0982419ee5736fdcfd17d28dcb2c097b639afb2"
}