I should also add that I think those who claim that fee pressure will scare away users and break the industry are *seriously* underestimating human ingenuity in the face of a challenge. We can do this - we can overcome this obstacle…we can find good solutions to a fee market. Unless someone can come up with another way to pay for the operation of the network, we NEED to do this. What makes anyone think it will be easier to do later rather than now? The longer we wait, the lower block rewards get, the larger the deployed infrastructure, the larger our userbase, the HARDER it will be to solve it. We should solve it now - we will be much better off for it…and so will our users.
> On Jul 23, 2015, at 4:57 PM, Eric Lombrozo <elombr...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> On Jul 23, 2015, at 4:42 PM, Benedict Chan <ben...@fragnetics.com >> <mailto:ben...@fragnetics.com>> wrote: >> >> Scaling the network will come in the form of a combination of many >> optimizations. Just because we do not know for sure how to eventually >> serve 7 billion people does not mean we should make decisions on >> global validation that impact our ability to serve the current set of >> users. > > Agreed. But I believe the economic and security arguments I gave regarding > fees and incentives still hold and are largely separate from the scalability > issue. Please correct me if I overlooked something. > > >> Also, blocking a change because it's "more important to address issues >> such as..." other improvements will further slow down the discussion. >> I believe an increase will not prevent the development of other >> improvements that we need - in contrast, the sooner we can get over >> the limit (which, as you agree, needs to be changed at some point), >> the sooner we can get back to work. > > An increase in block size at this time will exacerbate security concerns > around nodes relying on other nodes to validate (particularly miners and > wallets). It’s not really a matter of having limited developer resources that > need to be budgeted, as you seem to suggest. > > Regarding developments on properly handling fees, there must exist the > economic need for it before there’s an earnest effort to solve it. Increasing > the block size right now will, in all likelihood, delay this effort. I’d much > prefer to first let the fee market evolve because it’s a crucial component to > the protocol’s design and its security model…and so we can get a better sense > for fee economics. Then we might be able to figure out better approaches to > block size changes in the future that makes sense economically…perhaps with > mechanisms that can dynamically adjust it to reflect resource availability > and network load.
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
