Jeff Garzik [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2015-12-16 📝 Original message:On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at ...

📅 Original date posted:2015-12-16
📝 Original message:On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 4:24 PM, Jorge Timón <jtimon at jtimon.cc> 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 short term, the risk of a Fee Event and lack of solid post-Fee-Event
economic plan implies "short term bump" reduces those risks.

It is also true - as noted in [1], a bump does create the danger of long
term moral hazard.

This is why a bump should be accompanied with at least a weak public
commitment to flexcap or a similar long term proposal, as the original
email recommended. Communicate clearly the conditions for future change,
then iterate as needs and feedback indicate.



[1] http://gtf.org/garzik/bitcoin/BIP100-blocksizechangeproposal.pdf
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20151216/eecf9243/attachment.html>;