{"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:2015-06-26\n📝 Original message:-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----\nHash: SHA1\n\nApologies in advance for pulling you up on your statement, Tom, I've\nnoticed you're a regular and well respected poster in this list:\n\n\"free market\" who?\n\nAre you aware that the Bitcoin rally of 2013 was a result of\nspeculation by elements in Citi Bank, JPMorgan, and by many other Wall\nStreet trading desk managers who saw the opportunity of a\nfree-floating, unregulated commodity?\n\nIf the intention is to leave Bitcoin to the \"free market\" it already\nis, and has been there for some time.\n\nAs for miners, those are finance capitalist interest too - if not\ncurrently, in their majority, then eventually in China and the rest of\nthe world, so what does the term \"free market\" really mean? It must be\ndefined, because you are speaking to developers here, not visionary\neconomists or politicized brains, necessarily.\n\nWe cannot speak about \"the market\" without referencing concerns about\ncentralization, because any centralized business that plays the game\nright seeks, by the rules, to corner the market. If they cannot do it\nalone, they will seek allies.\n\n\"Free market\" means as much under capitalism as \"open democracy\" under\nStalinism. Do you see my point? \"Free Market\" is a multivariate term\nand Bitcoin does not (and should not have to) cater to all its\ndemands. That's like applying Microsoft standards to FOSS efforts -\nbecuase that's the \"business use-case\".\n\nBitcoin developers have to think about economy in an informed manner\nand make provision with protection, else one can just make like Mike\nHearn and jump up and down shouting \"faster-faster more-more\".\nEconomics, markets and speculation is more complicated than that.\n\nVenzen\n\n\nOn 06/26/2015 10:38 PM, Tom Harding wrote:\n\u003e On 6/26/2015 7:09 AM, Pieter Wuille wrote:\n\u003e\u003e Furthermore, systems that compete with Bitcoin in this space\n\u003e\u003e already offer orders of magnitude more capacity than we can\n\u003e\u003e reasonably achieve with any blockchain technology at this point.\n\u003e \n\u003e \"Reasonably achievable\" is a guideline that would keep bitcoin out\n\u003e of trouble caused by either too little, or too much, declared\n\u003e capacity. This matches Gavin's thinking, though you may differ on\n\u003e the numbers.\n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e\u003e it seems silly to make a huge increase at once...\n\u003e \n\u003e Unless it is reasonably achievable.  Leave the rest to the free\n\u003e market.\n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing\n\u003e list bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org \n\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\u003e \n-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----\nVersion: GnuPG v1\n\niQEcBAEBAgAGBQJVjXw4AAoJEGwAhlQc8H1mX2kIAJCLodhsEhkzxkzZl1hUITkZ\nfFZWuiKomsHTHU+6cCr0snt0VDI7+mP8SgyawWrwXNKdGKqpiUAX+B454I9POYBQ\npf/CUq/sWMFN/WRO1EYpVBz3zH/mDgMUZeLvnGYti05+3YzxJxBsy2cmkX5HCfUL\noUErqWEo+OjeQNT+ZgFSbYYLSBLO2fDJglPzXD4eTF6RrK3AsZpHgnVqQzlAC+4G\nQ7zRQN/h3voXJ5ed684Hy8bb04KKsEo0EYx2Nz6Hd9mGkSnnqydIa8ieJO3ChYyi\nIDyJVXpDOth0TshZARbTFuicYg0ULUmU/l5x38Z3HFp9J1G4GFhnoivBwRozlQ8=\n=a+o4\n-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----"}