Yes - but you must recognize that is precisely 50% of the picture.

Others have made different assumptions - taking the [1MB-constrained]
market *as it exists today*, rather than in some projected future.

Raising the block size limit then becomes a *human decision* to favor some
users over others, a *human decision* to prevent an active and competitive
free fee market developing at 1MB, a *human decision* to keep transaction
fees low to incentivize bitcoin adoption, a *human decision* to value
adoption over decentralization.

These statements are not value judgements - not saying you are wrong -
these are observations of some rather huge, relevant blind spots in this

On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 11:29 AM, Mike Hearn <> wrote:

> It is a trivial *code* change.  It is not a trivial change to the
>> economics of a $3.2B system.
> Hmm - again I'd argue the opposite.
> Up until now Bitcoin has been unconstrained by the hard block size limit.
> If we raise it, Bitcoin will continue to be unconstrained by it. That's
> the default "continue as we are" position.
> If it's not raised, then ....... well, then we're in new territory
> entirely. Businesses built on the assumption that Bitcoin could become
> popular will suddenly have their basic assumptions invalidated. Users will
> leave. The technical code change would be zero, but the economic change
> would be significant.

Jeff Garzik
Bitcoin core developer and open source evangelist
BitPay, Inc.
One dashboard for servers and applications across Physical-Virtual-Cloud 
Widest out-of-the-box monitoring support with 50+ applications
Performance metrics, stats and reports that give you Actionable Insights
Deep dive visibility with transaction tracing using APM Insight.;117567292;y
Bitcoin-development mailing list

Reply via email to