📅 Original date posted:2015-08-06
📝 Original message:On Aug 6, 2015 9:42 PM, "Gavin Andresen via bitcoin-dev" <
bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
2. The "market minimum fee" should be determined by the market. It should
not be up to us to decide "when is a good time."
I partially agree. The community should decide what risks it is willing to
take, and set limits accordingly. Let the market decide how that space is
best used.
>
>>
>> Would you agree that blocksize increase proposals should have such a
>> criterion/test?
>
>
> Although I've been very clear with my criterion, no, I don't think all
blocksize increase proposals should have to justify "why this size" or "why
this rate of increase." Part of my frustration with this whole debate is
we're talking about a sanity-check upper-limit; as long as it doesn't open
up some terrible new DoS possibility I don't think it really matters much
what the exact number is.
It is only a DoS protection limit if you want to rely on trusting miners. I
prefer a system where I don't have to do that.
But I agree the numbers don't matter much, for a different reason: the
market will fill up whatever space is available, and we'll have the same
discussion when the new limit doesn't seem enough anymore.
--
Pieter
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150806/7e4c45e8/attachment.html>;
Pieter Wuille [ARCHIVE] /
npub1tj…jtl6r
2023-06-07 15:44:54
in reply to nevent1q…90e8
Author Public Key
npub1tjephawh7fdf6358jufuh5eyxwauzrjqa7qn50pglee4tayc2ntqcjtl6rPublished at
2023-06-07 15:44:54Event JSON
{
"id": "74421ab98fb0bdfd4c232c260cd1ac085289201a47171d8a1551c5bc1f28f562",
"pubkey": "5cb21bf5d7f25a9d46879713cbd32433bbc10e40ef813a3c28fe7355f49854d6",
"created_at": 1686152694,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"a4d71ef2ddda9c77f8ea8d885165eb505edf2c401c1a75726495bef91bd64d3b",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"e56ffa3b00f9df0b047725d029b272ff787579670447b80493957bed2270566c",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"857f2f78dc1639e711f5ea703a9fc978e22ebd279abdea1861b7daa833512ee4"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-08-06\n📝 Original message:On Aug 6, 2015 9:42 PM, \"Gavin Andresen via bitcoin-dev\" \u003c\nbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n2. The \"market minimum fee\" should be determined by the market. It should\nnot be up to us to decide \"when is a good time.\"\n\nI partially agree. The community should decide what risks it is willing to\ntake, and set limits accordingly. Let the market decide how that space is\nbest used.\n\n\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e Would you agree that blocksize increase proposals should have such a\n\u003e\u003e criterion/test?\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e Although I've been very clear with my criterion, no, I don't think all\nblocksize increase proposals should have to justify \"why this size\" or \"why\nthis rate of increase.\" Part of my frustration with this whole debate is\nwe're talking about a sanity-check upper-limit; as long as it doesn't open\nup some terrible new DoS possibility I don't think it really matters much\nwhat the exact number is.\n\nIt is only a DoS protection limit if you want to rely on trusting miners. I\nprefer a system where I don't have to do that.\n\nBut I agree the numbers don't matter much, for a different reason: the\nmarket will fill up whatever space is available, and we'll have the same\ndiscussion when the new limit doesn't seem enough anymore.\n\n-- \nPieter\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150806/7e4c45e8/attachment.html\u003e",
"sig": "0262aa2594f6b218125ccb334f34b4bb38f75467bcc17751192555a68dc09f9b676932d5d99adf4860567420119adc76dcdbf80222b78a0a17612af72727d73b"
}