Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B9BCE722 for ; Fri, 7 Jul 2017 23:38:07 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-vk0-f50.google.com (mail-vk0-f50.google.com [209.85.213.50]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5D49517C for ; Fri, 7 Jul 2017 23:38:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-vk0-f50.google.com with SMTP id r125so25475743vkf.1 for ; Fri, 07 Jul 2017 16:38:07 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=UF2sfqkTNLwriS2rgw+WXM0bV+EDYm8XcPUkFLup0Fs=; b=KtZo7U4iZWeddWw4S1r2drN7QJCj9k4rf2FTRooVrwbWPNWnQX7J6EEYV1QSQqWTG+ 8zD0KjRhxQelpnBZAxeyqAVRiJ7w9bBplyoSFdpf3N9+0MrOMsFJFfW34gd4kQijB3JM z4obB51zCWPtGwXqoof/dsJ18lVT4z+InoOfTm34Avid7ulLJSxXbcwD2Ue7aAKzHGA1 PTPJ22k1PV/yh18Kqlc7X/U2FKacRHabihjIWap7i4GldevN0Vdqrzjb2gkxK3As4pEX HoTWQJkLWuLWMwhCn76D+aq/ahi7jVsjx7Ukl0i3yBlFvWKLUt+1e1AIOEXsvMGDZOyr m9Og== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=UF2sfqkTNLwriS2rgw+WXM0bV+EDYm8XcPUkFLup0Fs=; b=MWMYBZbDhn4LMChqDzIbPQ+FNtZImKb2V10SW11CCMIFgDGPnfcfjODinzfu9u5OEi Gp6UmKu/ib4sGJgx8CIJgZYDGAJfJ/sqSmOpwgQWNuK5qe4HpEFxAgIq4GrYDjT+KSRW wic47Y+NHvhGJWDuWQHsxAreC0YTUZm5DTMSSZJhZHq4R9U0l+RINFKeeOABuGkVCbFu bbl+XyEU5fa/BPs40v3kWsSn5bCz9MmwVdQhIXXmNDdzKCyRyPJSamQqDumY5CqfA6Z5 HRXGPD4J3ceBxfe1UcsXuNzdfy6Gf7CRhW9yviy2qUHLvER9o2tWvzL1lm4ckncZd7Nj ggKA== X-Gm-Message-State: AIVw113HY7hTWKOi050wL3jxnV4TUPnLNzuYJVP/0buw7Uwtjrrn+REP Hop4AtH2i69UYmi1xZT0VJ6YBf20HQ== X-Received: by 10.31.110.71 with SMTP id j68mr1940290vkc.72.1499470686486; Fri, 07 Jul 2017 16:38:06 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: gmaxwell@gmail.com Received: by 10.103.40.2 with HTTP; Fri, 7 Jul 2017 16:38:06 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <201707072327.15901.luke@dashjr.org> References: <201707072327.15901.luke@dashjr.org> From: Gregory Maxwell Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2017 23:38:06 +0000 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 05JxQMq3ehv-FqqjO2UMWanOLxw Message-ID: To: Luke Dashjr Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, FREEMAIL_FROM, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM autolearn=no version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] A Segwit2x BIP X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2017 23:38:07 -0000 On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 11:27 PM, Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev wrote: > Larger block sizes is not likely to have a meaningful impact on fee pressure. > Any expectations that do not match the reality are merely misguided, and > should not be a basis for changing Bitcoin. I think it's very clear that they will in the very short term (https://anduck.net/bitcoin/fees/4320_blocks.php note the rate drops when demand falls below supply). But I agree with you if you mean a somewhat longer term e.g. a year out.