reply on: The Pleb Economist #3: On the political economy of blocksize \ stacker news ~econ

pull down to refresh

147 sats \ 4 replies \ @Undisciplined 4 Feb \ on: The Pleb Economist #3: On the political economy of blocksize econ

I'm in the "Be damn well sure you know why the fence is there, before you take it down." camp.

I also don't like the idea of solutions in search of problems. What we have right now are concerns about problems that may emerge later, not real problems in the present.

I do wish block size had been designed to be endogenous from the outset, so I get why people want to go that route. It's clearly an arbitrary parameter in the system. I just don't think that's a good enough reason to start mucking about in the fundamentals of something that is so successful.

62 sats \ 2 replies \ @Scoresby 20h

Chesterton fences for the win.

17 sats \ 1 reply \ @Undisciplined 20h

Is this close to your view, too?

I imagine you've given this question some thought.

80 sats \ 0 replies \ @Scoresby 19h

Pretty much. I was just writing up a long-winded reply that can be summarized as "Yes."

I particularly appreciate your emphasis on the difference between problems that may emerge later and problems we actually are dealing with today.

But mostly I enjoyed the OP's point that we should keep the rough in rough consensus.

34 sats \ 0 replies \ @SimpleStacker OP 4 Feb

More than fair. In recent times, block size isn't really a problem at all. The growth in Bitcoin-to-goods exchange rate + block reward has been enough to keep miners profitable and fees are at rock bottom right now.