Re: [bitcoin-dev] Block size: It's economics & user preparation & moral hazard

On Dec 26, 2015 5:45 PM, "Pieter Wuille via bitcoin-dev" < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > My opinion is that the role of Bitcoin Core maintainers is judging whether consensus for a hard fork exists, and is technically necessary and safe. We don't need a hashpower vote to decide

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Block size: It's economics & user preparation & moral hazard

On Dec 26, 2015 23:55, "Jonathan Toomim" wrote: > > On Dec 26, 2015, at 8:44 AM, Pieter Wuille via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: >> >> Furthermore, 75% is pretty terrible as a switchover point, as it guarantees that old nodes will still see a 25% forked

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Block size: It's economics & user preparation & moral hazard

On Sat, Dec 26, 2015 at 5:15 PM, Justus Ranvier via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > On 12/26/2015 05:01 PM, Pieter Wuille via bitcoin-dev wrote: > > I think the shortest reasonable timeframe for an uncontroversial > > hardfork is somewhere in the range between 6 and

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Block size: It's economics & user preparation & moral hazard

On Dec 26, 2015, at 8:44 AM, Pieter Wuille via bitcoin-dev wrote: > Furthermore, 75% is pretty terrible as a switchover point, as it guarantees > that old nodes will still see a 25% forked off chain temporarily. > Yes, 75% plus a grace period is better. I

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Block size: It's economics & user preparation & moral hazard

On Dec 27, 2015 00:06, "Jonathan Toomim" wrote: > Given that a supermajority of users and miners have been asking for a hard fork to increase the blocksize for years, I do not think that mobilizing people to upgrade their nodes is going to be hard. > > When we do the hard fork, we

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Block size: It's economics & user preparation & moral hazard

On 12/26/2015 06:13 PM, Bryan Bishop wrote: > I think you'll find that there hasn't been stalling regarding an > uncontroversial hard-fork deployment. You might be confusing an > uncontroversial hard-fork decision instead with how developers have > brought up many issues about various

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Block size: It's economics & user preparation & moral hazard

> You present this as if the Bitcoin Core development team is in charge > of deciding the network consensus rules, and is responsible for > making changes to it in order to satisfy economic demand. If that is > the case, Bitcoin has failed, in my opinion. Pieter, what's actually happening is that

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Block size: It's economics & user preparation & moral hazard

I've already publicly declared that I offer one bitcoin to "those who suffer from a May 5, 2016 hardfork to 2MB blocks" but that's probably way too sloppy. Here's a better idea that transmits the economic power of merchants and customers (well, anyone with bitcoin) to the miners on whom they must

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Block size: It's economics & user preparation & moral hazard

On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 7:44 PM, Peter Todd wrote: > If Bitcoin remains decentralized, miners have veto power over any > blocksize increases. You can always soft-fork in a blocksize reduction > in a decentralized blockchain that actually works. > The actual users of the

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Block size: It's economics & user preparation & moral hazard

On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 2:56 AM, Pieter Wuille wrote: > On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 6:11 AM, Jeff Garzik wrote: > >> You present this as if the Bitcoin Core development team is in charge > >> of deciding the network consensus rules, and is responsible for

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Block size: It's economics & user preparation & moral hazard

On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 9:11 PM, Pieter Wuille via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > We are not avoiding a choice. We don't have the authority to make a choice. > This is really the most important question. Bitcoin is kind of like a republic where there is separation

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Block size: It's economics & user preparation & moral hazard

On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 04:58:02PM +, Tier Nolan via bitcoin-dev wrote: > This is really the most important question. > > Bitcoin is kind of like a republic where there is separation of powers > between various groups. > > The power blocs in the process include > > - Core Devs > - Miners >

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Block size: It's economics & user preparation & moral hazard

On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 6:11 AM, Jeff Garzik wrote: >> You present this as if the Bitcoin Core development team is in charge >> of deciding the network consensus rules, and is responsible for making >> changes to it in order to satisfy economic demand. If that is the >> case,

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Block size: It's economics & user preparation & moral hazard

On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 1:11 PM, Pieter Wuille via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 10:08 PM, Jeff Garzik wrote: > >> You present this as if the Bitcoin Core development team is in charge > >> of deciding the network

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Block size: It's economics & user preparation & moral hazard

On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 1:34 PM, Pieter Wuille wrote: > On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 3:53 PM, Jeff Garzik via bitcoin-dev > wrote: > > 2) If block size stays at 1M, the Bitcoin Core developer team should > sign a > > collective note

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Block size: It's economics & user preparation & moral hazard

On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 8:44 PM, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev wrote: > If Bitcoin remains decentralized, miners have veto power over any > blocksize increases. You can always soft-fork in a blocksize reduction > in a decentralized blockchain that actually

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Block size: It's economics & user preparation & moral hazard

On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 1:34 PM, Pieter Wuille wrote: > On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 3:53 PM, Jeff Garzik via bitcoin-dev > wrote: > > 2) If block size stays at 1M, the Bitcoin Core developer team should > sign a > > collective note

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Block size: It's economics & user preparation & moral hazard

On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 3:53 PM, Jeff Garzik via bitcoin-dev wrote: > 2) If block size stays at 1M, the Bitcoin Core developer team should sign a > collective note stating their desire to transition to a new economic policy, > that of "healthy fee market"

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Block size: It's economics & user preparation & moral hazard

I would also like to summarize my observation and thoughts after the Hong Kong workshop. 1. I'm so glad that I had this opportunity to meet so many smart developers who are dedicated to make Bitcoin better. Regular conference like this is very important for a young project, and it is

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Block size: It's economics & user preparation & moral hazard

On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 4:24 PM, Jorge Timón wrote: > Assuming we adopt bip102, eventually you will be able to say exactly the > same about 2 MB. When does this "let's not change the economics" finishes > (if ever)? > The question is answered in the original email. In the

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Block size: It's economics & user preparation & moral hazard

On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 1:11 PM, Pieter Wuille via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > I indeed think we can communicate much better that deciding consensus > rules is not within our power. I'm not a core dev, so maybe I have the power to change the consensus rules. No

[bitcoin-dev] Block size: It's economics & user preparation & moral hazard

All, Following the guiding WP principle of Assume Good Faith, I've been trying to boil down the essence of the message following Scaling Bitcoin. There are key bitcoin issues that remain outstanding and pressing, that are* orthogonal to LN & SW*. I create multiple proposals and try multiple