📅 Original date posted:2015-07-31
📝 Original message:On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 7:58 AM, Mike Hearn via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> But it is easier to find common ground with others by compromising. Is 8mb
> better than no limit? I don't know and I don't care much:
>
People seeing statements like this might imagine that if you knew a change
from 1MB blocks to 1GB blocks would ensure fees were 10 cents for the next
two years instead of 30 cents over the next two years, you'd want to roll
out 1GB blocks. Would you? Where is your cutoff? How large would you be
willing to make the block size in exchange for moving fees from 30 cents to
10 cents for the next two years? How about $3 to 10 cents? $30 to 10 cents?
How do you think Greg/Pieter/Wlad/Adam/Jorge would answer those questions?
I find it very hard to guess, but I think knowing how people would make
that specific tradeoff could be helpful in either starting a more
productive discussion, or at least realizing how far apart people are in
their weighing of the risks of large blocks vs. the benefits of low fees.
Obviously the assumption that we have this two year stability period is
unrealistic, but the hypothetical tells us how much of the disagreement
comes from "if we increase the block size to lower fees, the low fees won't
last" vs. "the low fees aren't worth it even if they last."
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150731/20f72f7e/attachment.html>;
Elliot Olds [ARCHIVE] /
npub16w…lgem7
2023-06-07 15:44:21
in reply to nevent1q…qhfj
Author Public Key
npub16wtdr5grjycaw37553u5vvlfq09rwxhzz4kler6pz952a7ny6mtqslgem7Published at
2023-06-07 15:44:21Event JSON
{
"id": "12c2aded1b0c02809fe72fc019571446015ce3207b3b75aee350da15ef4aff11",
"pubkey": "d396d1d1039131d747d4a4794633e903ca371ae2156dfc8f411168aefa64d6d6",
"created_at": 1686152661,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"a5089d8cc94280b0825961adbe16d28b69a12ea3db4d49196026224a1cf60689",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"538ff7bc70401907393ab3ddcb197dc6bd8f34351bd25812def9e60957a25f62",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"e714966547dd91a3f320e4323e88e8ce7c046abe8c7e328d48ae1e68503b04f9"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-07-31\n📝 Original message:On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 7:58 AM, Mike Hearn via bitcoin-dev \u003c\nbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\n\u003e But it is easier to find common ground with others by compromising. Is 8mb\n\u003e better than no limit? I don't know and I don't care much:\n\u003e\n\nPeople seeing statements like this might imagine that if you knew a change\nfrom 1MB blocks to 1GB blocks would ensure fees were 10 cents for the next\ntwo years instead of 30 cents over the next two years, you'd want to roll\nout 1GB blocks. Would you? Where is your cutoff? How large would you be\nwilling to make the block size in exchange for moving fees from 30 cents to\n10 cents for the next two years? How about $3 to 10 cents? $30 to 10 cents?\n\nHow do you think Greg/Pieter/Wlad/Adam/Jorge would answer those questions?\nI find it very hard to guess, but I think knowing how people would make\nthat specific tradeoff could be helpful in either starting a more\nproductive discussion, or at least realizing how far apart people are in\ntheir weighing of the risks of large blocks vs. the benefits of low fees.\n\nObviously the assumption that we have this two year stability period is\nunrealistic, but the hypothetical tells us how much of the disagreement\ncomes from \"if we increase the block size to lower fees, the low fees won't\nlast\" vs. \"the low fees aren't worth it even if they last.\"\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150731/20f72f7e/attachment.html\u003e",
"sig": "69764a2037328f1e7921eaa0e0316a7926de0d0a770f3c08e52cb26be8048a9099d5fac77d7d5088acc144fba197e62316c8551dffae9cada93f732b1fb52b3a"
}