đź“… Original date posted:2015-06-14
đź“ť Original message: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?
>
>
>
--
Jeff Garzik
Bitcoin core developer and open source evangelist
BitPay, Inc. https://bitpay.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150614/b1a4825d/attachment.html>;
Jeff Garzik [ARCHIVE] /
npub1kf…f3f58
2023-06-07 17:37:32
in reply to nevent1q…6twr
Author Public Key
npub1kf0ppcjaguxekg24yx6smgxlu73qn0k8lm0t2wrqc0scpl7u3sgsmf3f58Published at
2023-06-07 17:37:32Event JSON
{
"id": "071dfb94018265683f11bf8c4f4b8efeae3aa86c523c1a9d59b0d85940ac884d",
"pubkey": "b25e10e25d470d9b215521b50da0dfe7a209bec7fedeb53860c3e180ffdc8c11",
"created_at": 1686152252,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"8a807127e1ae5b585bcc8f3578413a7d3eb1bd30e75c19cd4a3a0a256adcb61c",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"7aea8103b21d51d1d1b57c5817b669bd8f44fb78a6749ddd537b11c7602b2a9b",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"e899768d254f3537af7e26455968583632d0ab0bd4c780445eacfa087ac80d8f"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-06-14\n📝 Original message:The choice is very real and on-point. What should the block size limit\nbe? Why?\n\nThere is a large consensus that it needs increasing. To what? By what\nfactor?\n\nThe size limit literally defines the fee market, the whole damn thing. If\nsoftware high priests choose a size limit of 300k, space is scarce, fees\nare bid high. If software high priests choose a size limit of 32mb, space\nis plentiful, fees are near zero. Market actors take their signals\naccordingly. Some business models boom, some business models fail, as a\ndirect result of changing this unintentionally-added speedbump. Different\nusers value adoption, decentralization etc. differently.\n\nThe size limit is an economic policy lever that needs to be transitioned\n-away- from software and software developers, to the free market.\n\nA simple, e.g. hard fork to 2MB or 4MB does not fix higher level governance\nproblems associated with actors lobbying developers, even if a cloistered\nand vetted Technical Advisory Board as has been proposed.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nOn Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 1:20 AM, Eric Lombrozo \u003celombrozo at gmail.com\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e I definitely think we need some voting system for metaconsensus…but if\n\u003e we’re going to seriously consider this we should look at the problem much\n\u003e more generally. Using false choices doesn’t really help, though ;)\n\u003e\n\u003e - Eric Lombrozo\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e On Jun 13, 2015, at 10:13 PM, Jeff Garzik \u003cjgarzik at bitpay.com\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\n\u003e On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 1:08 AM, Eric Lombrozo \u003celombrozo at gmail.com\u003e\n\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\n\u003e\u003e 2) BIP100 has direct economic consequences…and particularly for miners.\n\u003e\u003e It lends itself to much greater corruptibility.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e What is the alternative? Have a Chief Scientist or Technical Advisory\n\u003e Board choose what is a proper fee, what is a proper level of\n\u003e decentralization, a proper growth factor?\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\n\n-- \nJeff Garzik\nBitcoin core developer and open source evangelist\nBitPay, Inc. https://bitpay.com/\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150614/b1a4825d/attachment.html\u003e",
"sig": "e2769e6372b71e3ef60a6353b9f82d77f11248bc162b84d37d7c9f5aa79ac0e18681c07c09ebe3b7bb12d2767bff2776017ef4a5cf8f83a7151ea8dc471cb78e"
}