đź“… Original date posted:2015-06-14
đź“ť Original message:Jeff,
with all due respect, but I've seen you saying this a few times
now, that this decision is oh so difficult and important.
But this is not helpful. We all know that. Even I.
Make a suggestion, or stay out of the debate!
Mats
On 06/14/2015 07:36 AM, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> The choice is very real and on-point. What should the block size limit
> be? Why?
>
> There is a large consensus that it needs increasing. To what? By what
> factor?
>
> The size limit literally defines the fee market, the whole damn thing. If
> software high priests choose a size limit of 300k, space is scarce, fees
> are bid high. If software high priests choose a size limit of 32mb, space
> is plentiful, fees are near zero. Market actors take their signals
> accordingly. Some business models boom, some business models fail, as a
> direct result of changing this unintentionally-added speedbump. Different
> users value adoption, decentralization etc. differently.
>
> The size limit is an economic policy lever that needs to be transitioned
> -away- from software and software developers, to the free market.
>
> A simple, e.g. hard fork to 2MB or 4MB does not fix higher level governance
> problems associated with actors lobbying developers, even if a cloistered
> and vetted Technical Advisory Board as has been proposed.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 1:20 AM, Eric Lombrozo <elombrozo at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I definitely think we need some voting system for metaconsensus…but if
>> we’re going to seriously consider this we should look at the problem much
>> more generally. Using false choices doesn’t really help, though ;)
>>
>> - Eric Lombrozo
>>
>>
>> On Jun 13, 2015, at 10:13 PM, Jeff Garzik <jgarzik at bitpay.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 1:08 AM, Eric Lombrozo <elombrozo at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> 2) BIP100 has direct economic consequences…and particularly for miners.
>>> It lends itself to much greater corruptibility.
>>>
>>>
>> What is the alternative? Have a Chief Scientist or Technical Advisory
>> Board choose what is a proper fee, what is a proper level of
>> decentralization, a proper growth factor?
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>
Mats Henricson [ARCHIVE] /
npub18n…ltg35
2023-06-07 15:37:33
in reply to nevent1q…g7te
Author Public Key
npub18nln9r4lzug8hzsmegqwsl9040ckpqquyz73v4du495xmmepwf0qaltg35Seen on
wss://relay.nostr.bandPublished at
2023-06-07 15:37:33Event JSON
{
"id": "d2f94a6449543573504e932eb0005711a91c1d06a4cab8214e7384f70abfd3ce",
"pubkey": "3cff328ebf17107b8a1bca00e87cafabf160801c20bd1655bca9686def21725e",
"created_at": 1686152253,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"8a807127e1ae5b585bcc8f3578413a7d3eb1bd30e75c19cd4a3a0a256adcb61c",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"071dfb94018265683f11bf8c4f4b8efeae3aa86c523c1a9d59b0d85940ac884d",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"b25e10e25d470d9b215521b50da0dfe7a209bec7fedeb53860c3e180ffdc8c11"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-06-14\n📝 Original message:Jeff,\n\nwith all due respect, but I've seen you saying this a few times\nnow, that this decision is oh so difficult and important.\n\nBut this is not helpful. We all know that. Even I.\n\nMake a suggestion, or stay out of the debate!\n\nMats\n\nOn 06/14/2015 07:36 AM, Jeff Garzik wrote:\n\u003e The choice is very real and on-point. What should the block size limit\n\u003e be? Why?\n\u003e \n\u003e There is a large consensus that it needs increasing. To what? By what\n\u003e factor?\n\u003e \n\u003e The size limit literally defines the fee market, the whole damn thing. If\n\u003e software high priests choose a size limit of 300k, space is scarce, fees\n\u003e are bid high. If software high priests choose a size limit of 32mb, space\n\u003e is plentiful, fees are near zero. Market actors take their signals\n\u003e accordingly. Some business models boom, some business models fail, as a\n\u003e direct result of changing this unintentionally-added speedbump. Different\n\u003e users value adoption, decentralization etc. differently.\n\u003e \n\u003e The size limit is an economic policy lever that needs to be transitioned\n\u003e -away- from software and software developers, to the free market.\n\u003e \n\u003e A simple, e.g. hard fork to 2MB or 4MB does not fix higher level governance\n\u003e problems associated with actors lobbying developers, even if a cloistered\n\u003e and vetted Technical Advisory Board as has been proposed.\n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 1:20 AM, Eric Lombrozo \u003celombrozo at gmail.com\u003e wrote:\n\u003e \n\u003e\u003e I definitely think we need some voting system for metaconsensus…but if\n\u003e\u003e we’re going to seriously consider this we should look at the problem much\n\u003e\u003e more generally. Using false choices doesn’t really help, though ;)\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e - Eric Lombrozo\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e On Jun 13, 2015, at 10:13 PM, Jeff Garzik \u003cjgarzik at bitpay.com\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 1:08 AM, Eric Lombrozo \u003celombrozo at gmail.com\u003e\n\u003e\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e 2) BIP100 has direct economic consequences…and particularly for miners.\n\u003e\u003e\u003e It lends itself to much greater corruptibility.\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e What is the alternative? Have a Chief Scientist or Technical Advisory\n\u003e\u003e Board choose what is a proper fee, what is a proper level of\n\u003e\u003e decentralization, a proper growth factor?\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e ------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e Bitcoin-development mailing list\n\u003e Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net\n\u003e https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development\n\u003e",
"sig": "c84061ab1da108cf6cad5a09906d41bcfef85e50c392531c938b45524af53c2a899b3f83d504066921eda6268aab4ee14f251bb1c9f05d93379b1f34c7bd1723"
}