📅 Original date posted:2015-06-26
📝 Original message:On 06/26/2015 02:23 PM, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Failure to plan now for a hard fork increase 6(?) months in the future
> produces that lumpy, unpredictable market behavior.
>
> The market has baked in the years-long behavior of low fees. From the
> market PoV, inaction does lead to precisely that, a sudden change over
> the span of a few months.
Which market participants are you referring to?
I entered the bitcoin market with open eyes, aware that it faces hard
scalability challenges by design. I was also aware that because of these
challenges, eventually transaction fees would have to rise.
Nevertheless, I made the decision to invest because of the utility I
gain from the anti-censorship, privacy, control, store of value, and
security aspects of bitcoin -- many of which stem from
decentralization, which others have demonstrated to be linked to the
block size.
On the other hand, there are undoubtedly other market participants who
heard hype about "zero fee transactions to anywhere in the world",
believed it would scale, and made (mal)investments as a result.
As for how many market participants of each flavor, and how deep their
respective pockets, who knows? My experience in markets has lead me to
realize that it's never wise to assume I know what "the market" does and
doesn't know. If Jeff Garzik is right about what the market has priced
in, then yes, filled blocks will be rocking the boat. But who's to say
that the smartest, biggest investors and traders don't already see this
scaling problem, and have already priced it in? In this case, a sudden
large increase in the block size is actually rocking the boat. The point
is, you can't know either way, so trying to pre-empt the market in this
way is erroneous.
Regarding entrepreneurial investment specifically, why should we favor
the entrepreneurs who require a more centralized bitcoin over those who
were more considerate of the possibility of rising transaction fees when
making their business models?
In my mind, we should favor neither, which is why I'm basically in
agreement with Pieter that this sense of "emergency" shouldn't really be
a part of the debate.
Not that I'm taking a stand on the specific block size issue either way.
I just think this particular line of reasoning (presupposing what
information the market has and has not already baked in) is unsound.
Owen Gunden [ARCHIVE] /
npub130…hyp4t
2023-06-07 15:40:35
in reply to nevent1q…xlxe
Author Public Key
npub130jddflllc905dlmj0pks9j6fdtld9eu0pql9gm86dxts7whrvxq5hyp4tPublished at
2023-06-07 15:40:35Event JSON
{
"id": "07231aa711b613e37511186ac7980d060c4ba8b4347b18be31acb5cc37aac21b",
"pubkey": "8be4d6a7fffe0afa37fb93c368165a4b57f6973c7841f2a367d34cb879d71b0c",
"created_at": 1686152435,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"6b97b8772e4c3c0f5eb751746063b4217197a3eb7cab2fa3b16264082ad573c4",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"1b4db7278ac2469daa650d2498856470680ea36b28b58d3f0529ea06789dd7f5",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"1c61d995949cbfaf14f767784e166bde865c7b8783d7aa3bf0a1d014b70c0069"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-06-26\n📝 Original message:On 06/26/2015 02:23 PM, Jeff Garzik wrote:\n\u003e Failure to plan now for a hard fork increase 6(?) months in the future\n\u003e produces that lumpy, unpredictable market behavior.\n\u003e\n\u003e The market has baked in the years-long behavior of low fees. From the\n\u003e market PoV, inaction does lead to precisely that, a sudden change over\n\u003e the span of a few months.\n\nWhich market participants are you referring to?\n\nI entered the bitcoin market with open eyes, aware that it faces hard \nscalability challenges by design. I was also aware that because of these \nchallenges, eventually transaction fees would have to rise.\n\nNevertheless, I made the decision to invest because of the utility I \ngain from the anti-censorship, privacy, control, store of value, and \nsecurity aspects of bitcoin -- many of which stem from \ndecentralization, which others have demonstrated to be linked to the \nblock size.\n\nOn the other hand, there are undoubtedly other market participants who \nheard hype about \"zero fee transactions to anywhere in the world\", \nbelieved it would scale, and made (mal)investments as a result.\n\nAs for how many market participants of each flavor, and how deep their \nrespective pockets, who knows? My experience in markets has lead me to \nrealize that it's never wise to assume I know what \"the market\" does and \ndoesn't know. If Jeff Garzik is right about what the market has priced \nin, then yes, filled blocks will be rocking the boat. But who's to say \nthat the smartest, biggest investors and traders don't already see this \nscaling problem, and have already priced it in? In this case, a sudden \nlarge increase in the block size is actually rocking the boat. The point \nis, you can't know either way, so trying to pre-empt the market in this \nway is erroneous.\n\nRegarding entrepreneurial investment specifically, why should we favor \nthe entrepreneurs who require a more centralized bitcoin over those who \nwere more considerate of the possibility of rising transaction fees when \nmaking their business models?\n\nIn my mind, we should favor neither, which is why I'm basically in \nagreement with Pieter that this sense of \"emergency\" shouldn't really be \na part of the debate.\n\nNot that I'm taking a stand on the specific block size issue either way. \nI just think this particular line of reasoning (presupposing what \ninformation the market has and has not already baked in) is unsound.",
"sig": "f7f5f4db33110f0123af1f0d87bd422750f5ee4b330782bbde23f0c664aff14dc147c799290bf73ef8e1652a87149717eb60aa070ee71323df4b84a8c5acd893"
}