Message-ID: <554AAB2E.6000006@thinlink.com>
Date: Wed, 06 May 2015 17:00:46 -0700
From: Tom Harding <tomh@thinlink.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64;
	rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Matt Corrallo <bitcoin-list@bluematt.me>
References: <554A91BE.6060105@bluematt.me>
In-Reply-To: <554A91BE.6060105@bluematt.me>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="------------090709040804040302090708"
Cc: Bitcoin Development <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Block Size Increase
Precedence: list

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------090709040804040302090708
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

On 5/6/2015 3:12 PM, Matt Corallo wrote:
> Long-term incentive compatibility requires
> that there be some fee pressure, and that blocks be relatively
> consistently full or very nearly full.

I think it's way too early to even consider a future era when the fiat 
value of the block reward is no longer the biggest-by-far mining incentive.

Creating fee pressure means driving some people to choose something 
else, not bitcoin. "Too many people using bitcoin" is nowhere on the 
list of problems today.  It's reckless to tinker with adoption in hopes 
of spurring innovation on speculation, while a "can kick" is available.

Adoption is currently at miniscule, test-flight, relatively 
insignificant levels when compared to global commerce.  As Gavin 
discussed in the article, under "Block size and miner fees… again," the 
best way to maximize miner incentives is to focus on doing things that 
are likely to increase adoption, which, in our fiat-dominated world, 
lead to a justifiably increased exchange rate.

Any innovation attractive enough to relieve the block size pressure will 
do so just as well without artificial stimulus.

Thanks for kicking off the discussion.


--------------090709040804040302090708
Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

<html>
  <head>
    <meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
      http-equiv="Content-Type">
  </head>
  <body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
    On 5/6/2015 3:12 PM, Matt Corallo wrote:<br>
    <blockquote cite="mid:554A91BE.6060105@bluematt.me" type="cite">
      <pre wrap="">Long-term incentive compatibility requires
that there be some fee pressure, and that blocks be relatively
consistently full or very nearly full.</pre>
    </blockquote>
    <br>
    I think it's way too early to even consider a future era when the
    fiat value of the block reward is no longer the biggest-by-far
    mining incentive.<br>
    <br>
    Creating fee pressure means driving some people to choose something
    else, not bitcoin. "Too many people using bitcoin" is nowhere on the
    list of problems today.  It's reckless to tinker with adoption in
    hopes of spurring innovation on speculation, while a "can kick" is
    available.<br>
    <br>
    Adoption is currently at miniscule, test-flight, relatively
    insignificant levels when compared to global commerce.  As Gavin
    discussed in the article, under "Block size and miner fees… again,"
    the best way to maximize miner incentives is to focus on doing
    things that are likely to increase adoption, which, in our
    fiat-dominated world, lead to a justifiably increased exchange rate.<br>
    <br>
    Any innovation attractive enough to relieve the block size pressure
    will do so just as well without artificial stimulus.<br>
    <br>
    Thanks for kicking off the discussion.<br>
    <br>
  </body>
</html>

--------------090709040804040302090708--