A fee market already exists and will exist with or without a block size limit:
hey peter do you even exist?
WHO ARE YOU?
If you're still wondering about this, my talk at the conference is in about a half hour. You can watch it on the livestream. Hope you enjoy it!
Edit: Oops. I was rushing to post this during the break and logged into the wrong account!
wtf!?
Regardless of anyone's definition of validity, one chain will be longer than the rest (it will contain more cumulative work). I am betting that this (longest) chain will contain a block greater than 1 MB in size by this time next year.
There is no ambiguity in that definition.
There is no ambiguity in that definition.
While I'm not on Peter R's side in the XT debate, he's correct about this. The terms of this potential "bet" are clear. In any case, even if there were some ambiguity, that's one reason there's a neutral third party in a 2-of-3 multisig.
Now for something completely different. Consider this modified version of "the bet": Peter R and anti-Peter R each put 1 BTC into a 2-of-3 multisig with a neutral third party. One year from now, the 2 BTC are paid out to Peter R on every chain that has had a block over 1MB. The 2 BTC are paid out to anti-Peter R on every chain that has not had a block over 1MB. This would actually give people a way to trade potential coins on potential multiple forks before the potential forks actually occur. It's a little surprising there aren't services offering something like this, given how adamant many people on different sides seem to be.
It appears that you just became witness of a double identity.
Let me sum up: Trent Russell = Peter R, but keep in mind that Trent Russell is not on Peter R's side in the XT debate.
Comedy gold.
ya.ya.yo!
