{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1uu2fve28mkg68uequseraz8gee7qg64733lr9r2g4c0xs5pmqnuslr4rpf","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1uu2fve28mkg68uequseraz8gee7qg64733lr9r2g4c0xs5pmqnuslr4rpf","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2015-08-12\n📝 Original message:-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----\nHash: SHA1\n\n\n\nOn 08/12/2015 10:35 AM, Elliot Olds via bitcoin-dev wrote:\n\u003e On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 2:51 PM, Pieter Wuille via bitcoin-dev \n\u003e \u003cbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org \n\u003e \u003cmailto:bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e\u003e wrote:\n\u003e \n\u003e On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 11:35 PM, Michael Naber \n\u003e \u003cmickeybob at gmail.com \u003cmailto:mickeybob at gmail.com\u003e\u003e wrote:\n\u003e \n\u003e Bitcoin would be better money than current money even if it were a \n\u003e bit more expensive to transact, simply because of its other great \n\u003e characteristics (trustlessness, limited supply, etc). However...\n\u003e it is not better than something else sharing all those same \n\u003e characteristics but which is also less expensive. The best money \n\u003e will win, and if Bitcoin doesn't increase capacity then it won't \n\u003e remain the best.\n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e If it is less expensive, it is harder to be reliable (because it's\n\u003e  easier for a sudden new use case to outbid the available space), \n\u003e which is less useful for a payment mechanism.\n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e It depends on which use case's reliability that you focus on. For \n\u003e any specific use case of Bitcoin, that use case will be more \n\u003e reliable with a larger block size (ignoring centralization \n\u003e effects).\n\nI read through your message and see the point you're trying to make,\nbut would like to point out that it is not useful to talk about\nhypothetical scenarios involving Bitcoin that include the supposition\n\"ignoring centralization effects\".\n\nDecentralization concerns are fundamental to this innovation, else it\nloses its meaning and value. And that's the trade-off that Pieter,\nJorge, Martin, Adam and others have referring to during the past 24\nhours: in order to have a secure Bitcoin that is not vulnerable to\ncentralization, certain sacrifices have to be made and the Consensus\nRule of a relatively small blocksize is the main protection we\ncurrently have.\n\nThere are a lot of \"larger blocks, more transactions\" arguments being\nmade that overlook this core axiom of decentralization. That is why\nthe developers and thinkers with the deepest understanding of this\nprotocol are pointing out the need for another layer on top of\nBitcoin. That is where the scaling can take place to cater for the\nuse-cases of more txns, quicker txns, remittance, etc. and with it\nincreased adoption.\n-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----\nVersion: GnuPG v1\n\niQEcBAEBAgAGBQJVys/tAAoJEGwAhlQc8H1mDOAH/1JRseGJWFKGsb4v7rapdcuY\nV6t4EAeoz8q7xvn1SeOdXzwY1wTOiThwqaWEnEzRfFoW6JYhsHx3rQa9D+s8z2Bq\n+lQ4oqkpOCcM6J3WAevzggWdzdP+xF8ztaRG5ynOge+m2lb1A2liadjSaeREz8/v\nkEFSfT2V+QbmF+plkXtr7g0efMQq97Qv71hZ8tD+kmVMe5PDmARNwumzwIZ33H0z\neiCK3zombKVYNx7bw20pv8GhWp9z7LsKLJpLwKtuTxjgxG+NYi2FcbVwt3R9MB6/\nTBsT4pmIvu29bIqWL2MDYLLnbU+cQTJNFSrrJar/aukqd5YlRDrY2Ikz82Ku86E=\n=1bDu\n-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----"}