<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">On 5 August 2015 at 12:07, Adam Back <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:adam@cypherspace.org" target="_blank">adam@cypherspace.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">This prediction market in block-size seems like something extremely<br>
complex to operate and keep secure in a decentralised fashion.</blockquote><div><br></div><div>Why would it need to be decentralised? Bitcoin.org could run the exchange, and the profits from the exchange could be used to fund Core development.</div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">We also have no particular reason to suppose other than<br>
meta-incentive, that it should result in a secure parameter set.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Security is a continuous variable, trading off against others. If security gradually begins to be threatened as a result of block size gradually increasing, the concerns of users will be enough that the bears will gain control over the bulls on the block size market.</div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
I suspect that, while it is interesting in the abstract, it risks<br>
converting a complex security problem into an even more complex one,<br>
rather than constituting an incremental security improvement which is<br>
more the context of day to day discussions here.</blockquote><div><br></div><div>Hard problems call for complex solutions. </div></div></div></div>