<HTML><HEAD></HEAD>
<BODY dir=ltr>
<DIV dir=ltr>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial'; COLOR: #000000">
<DIV>I agree that developers should avoid imposing economic policy. It is
dangerous for Bitcoin and the core developers themselves to become such a
central point of attack for those wishing to disrupt Bitcoin. My opinion
is these things are better left to a decentralized free market anyhow.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV
style='FONT-SIZE: small; TEXT-DECORATION: none; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri"; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; COLOR: #000000; FONT-STYLE: normal; DISPLAY: inline'>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt tahoma">
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV style="BACKGROUND: #f5f5f5">
<DIV style="font-color: black"><B>From:</B> <A title=gavinandresen@gmail.com
href="mailto:gavinandresen@gmail.com">Gavin Andresen</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, May 28, 2015 10:19 AM</DIV>
<DIV><B>To:</B> <A title=mike@plan99.net href="mailto:mike@plan99.net">Mike
Hearn</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Cc:</B> <A title=bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
href="mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net">Bitcoin Dev</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proposed alternatives to the 20MB
stepfunction</DIV></DIV></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></DIV>
<DIV
style='FONT-SIZE: small; TEXT-DECORATION: none; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri"; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; COLOR: #000000; FONT-STYLE: normal; DISPLAY: inline'>
<DIV dir=ltr>
<DIV class=gmail_extra>
<DIV class=gmail_quote>On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 1:05 PM, Mike Hearn <SPAN
dir=ltr><<A href="mailto:mike@plan99.net"
target=_blank>mike@plan99.net</A>></SPAN> wrote:<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=gmail_quote
style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">
<DIV dir=ltr>
<DIV class=gmail_extra>
<DIV class=gmail_quote>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=gmail_quote
style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">
<DIV dir=ltr>
<DIV class=gmail_extra>
<DIV class=gmail_quote>
<DIV>Isn't that a step backwards, then? I see no reason for fee pressure to
exist at the moment. All it's doing is turning away users for no purpose:
mining isn't supported by fees, and the tiny fees we use right now seem to
be good enough to stop penny
flooding.<BR></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Why not set the max size to be 20x the average size? Why 2x, given you
just pointed out that'd result in blocks shrinking rather than
growing.</DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><BR>Twenty is scary.</DIV>
<DIV class=gmail_extra> </DIV>
<DIV class=gmail_extra>And two is a very neutral number: if 50% of hashpower
want the max size to grow as fast as possible and 50% are dead-set opposed to
any increase in max size, then half produce blocks 2 times as big, half produce
empty blocks, and the max size doesn't change. If it was 20, then a small
minority of miners could force a max size increase. (if it is less than 2,
then a minority of minors can force the block size down)</DIV>
<DIV class=gmail_extra>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>As for whether there "should" be fee pressure now or not: I have no
opinion, besides "we should make block propagation faster so there is no
technical reason for miners to produce tiny blocks." I don't think us developers
should be deciding things like whether or not fees are too high, too low,
.....</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>-- <BR>
<DIV class=gmail_signature>--<BR>Gavin Andresen<BR></DIV></DIV></DIV>
<P>
<HR>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------<BR>
<P>
<HR>
_______________________________________________<BR>Bitcoin-development mailing
list<BR>Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net<BR>https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development<BR></DIV></DIV></DIV></BODY></HTML>