1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
|
Return-Path: <jgarzik@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 628D2724
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 22 Jul 2015 19:13:21 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-ig0-f177.google.com (mail-ig0-f177.google.com
[209.85.213.177])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F0E3B18A
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 22 Jul 2015 19:13:20 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by iggf3 with SMTP id f3so140424538igg.1
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 22 Jul 2015 12:13:20 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
:cc:content-type;
bh=GJxd925vMYBhUEyAxlwQIfiWUdZzm+HCMANjii1fC5c=;
b=DYXI4GF5yN/b0IYOeW3R/WuwypBpK3xD9jUZj2GYjekf37xTjUfkSh/3sR6JseqXr7
Hmrkj4CcH1R9NwzsY5WUMMfqet7pieEzZ+r0rjLgDH9hAcBKApPHkXb4Hq00+eoAw2GA
B2h0qwBLtMGzjG6D+uB3VMATYAXBgzixaS5iDZkukQrPtbimq0IW9Xy8fbpowiWMRD/6
8JeN1mxL7HQdx2Kf/O9vx4dzRd+Pox9vls3Qo6OkndOhus2iYXnQQjt8cDwOuPE1GAKJ
Nr/wb8kR/fLGKBEfPdd1hAgGLm/GA/Fxs5MebsgQpByURl9AKu7VFvmll+6PoyY7CjzJ
EEzA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.107.15.35 with SMTP id x35mr7342082ioi.168.1437588113111;
Wed, 22 Jul 2015 11:01:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.79.38.79 with HTTP; Wed, 22 Jul 2015 11:01:53 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CADm_WcbnQQGZoQ92twfUvbzqGwu__xLn+BYOkHPZY_YT1pFrbA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPg+sBgs-ouEMu=LOVCmOyCGwfM1Ygxooz0shyvAuHDGGZYfJw@mail.gmail.com>
<CAPg+sBgugLSVEwDLXhgey86_rM2fTjGWXFuXsiZioJKCZiHiNg@mail.gmail.com>
<CADm_WcbnQQGZoQ92twfUvbzqGwu__xLn+BYOkHPZY_YT1pFrbA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 11:01:53 -0700
Message-ID: <CADm_WcbnszcVP=50NDGhw4q2ULRHQF7hX4Hb8P8ptzDcS4oG1A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@gmail.com>
To: Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113ed7ead0c00f051b7a9010
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW
autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin Core and hard forks
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 19:13:21 -0000
--001a113ed7ead0c00f051b7a9010
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Addendum:
Please do not interpret - as many have - my points as advocating against
letting a fee market ever develop(!).
Fees are useful against DoS, increasing cost of attack etc. Further,
continuing the artificially-low fee policy ad infinitum is unsustainable
and constitutes a moral hazard.
Examine from the user's point of view. If you want to develop a fee
market, think it through in the context of user expectation/experience -
which translates to how software is written and users behave, the context
of market disruption, and the context of further block size increases.
Transition to a new economic policy should be planned. It should give
users and markets time to adjust.
It is grossly irresponsible to simply drop users into a new economic policy
with no warning and no preparation.
--001a113ed7ead0c00f051b7a9010
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr">Addendum:<div><br></div><div>Please do not interpret - as =
many have - my points as advocating against letting a fee market ever devel=
op(!).</div><div><br></div><div>Fees are useful against DoS, increasing cos=
t of attack etc.=C2=A0 Further, continuing the artificially-low fee policy =
ad infinitum is unsustainable and constitutes a moral hazard.</div><div><br=
></div><div>Examine from the user's point of view.=C2=A0 If you want to=
develop a fee market, think it through in the context of user expectation/=
experience - which translates to how software is written and users behave, =
the context of market disruption, and the context of further block size inc=
reases.</div><div><br></div><div>Transition to a new economic policy should=
be planned.=C2=A0 It should give users and markets time to adjust.</div><d=
iv><br></div><div>It is grossly irresponsible to simply drop users into a n=
ew economic policy with no warning and no preparation.</div><div><br></div>=
<div><br></div></div>
--001a113ed7ead0c00f051b7a9010--
|
