Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of bitpay.com
	designates 209.85.214.173 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=209.85.214.173; envelope-from=jgarzik@bitpay.com;
	helo=mail-ob0-f173.google.com; 
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <554B78DE.20600@localhost.local>
References: <554A91BE.6060105@bluematt.me>
	<CANEZrP3wGWHdz+ut6pvke5TJJsc1rTFt8sn2KziX35oL5LAsyg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAJHLa0Mr6aQcVRKtidc+qVR7-esriyp5kzAw1LMHHwOcXhhG+Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<554B78DE.20600@localhost.local>
From: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@bitpay.com>
Date: Thu, 7 May 2015 11:04:58 -0400
Message-ID: <CAJHLa0OXpbAeDsQknR0HewasPq0PYPLNU3yWJ+xzerB6CXX7jw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Justus Ranvier <justusranvier@riseup.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113d42e067cf2e05157f3df0
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Block Size Increase
Precedence: list

--001a113d42e067cf2e05157f3df0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 10:38 AM, Justus Ranvier <justusranvier@riseup.net>
wrote:

> On 05/07/2015 04:04 PM, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> > - This is a major change to the economics of a $3.2B system.  This
> > change picks winners and losers.  There is attendant moral hazard.
>
> This is exactly true.
>
> There are a number of projects which aren't Bitcoin that benefit from
> filling in the gap left by Bitcoin's restricted transaction rate
> capability.
>
> If Bitcoin fills that gap, Bitcoin wins and those other projects lose.
>
> Should decisions about Bitcoin development take into account the
> desires of competing projects?


heh - I tend to think people here want bitcoin to succeed.  My statement
refers to picking winners and losers from within the existing bitcoin
community & stakeholders.

The existential question of the block size increase is larger - will
failing to increase the 1MB limit permanently stunt bitcoin's growth?

--001a113d42e067cf2e05157f3df0
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On T=
hu, May 7, 2015 at 10:38 AM, Justus Ranvier <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=
=3D"mailto:justusranvier@riseup.net" target=3D"_blank">justusranvier@riseup=
.net</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"ma=
rgin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class=3D=
"">On 05/07/2015 04:04 PM, Jeff Garzik wrote:<br>
&gt; - This is a major change to the economics of a $3.2B system.=C2=A0 Thi=
s<br>
&gt; change picks winners and losers.=C2=A0 There is attendant moral hazard=
.<br>
<br>
</span>This is exactly true.<br>
<br>
There are a number of projects which aren&#39;t Bitcoin that benefit from<b=
r>
filling in the gap left by Bitcoin&#39;s restricted transaction rate<br>
capability.<br>
<br>
If Bitcoin fills that gap, Bitcoin wins and those other projects lose.<br>
<br>
Should decisions about Bitcoin development take into account the<br>
desires of competing projects?</blockquote><div><br></div><div>heh - I tend=
 to think people here want bitcoin to succeed.=C2=A0 My statement refers to=
 picking winners and losers from within the existing bitcoin community &amp=
; stakeholders.<br><br></div><div>The existential question of the block siz=
e increase is larger - will failing to increase the 1MB limit permanently s=
tunt bitcoin&#39;s growth?<br><br></div><div><br>=C2=A0<br></div></div></di=
v></div>

--001a113d42e067cf2e05157f3df0--