{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1c8flqlwmkh5vehm7rfcacurk9x5ggv36vtra2p97thynzfq0vxus5zgzt8","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1c8flqlwmkh5vehm7rfcacurk9x5ggv36vtra2p97thynzfq0vxus5zgzt8","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2015-08-11\n📝 Original message:\u003e So if they dont care about decentralisation, they'll be happy using cheaper\noff-chain systems, right?\n\nYou betcha! Just talk to a regular people and try to sell them on the\ndifferent scenarios.\n\nThey will start using something cheaper/faster the minute it comes along\nfrom the banking industry, just to give you a real world example, this week\nI've been dreading the idea of having to go to the bank to make a couple of\ncash deposits. If I could open my bank's web page right now and do a very\nsimple interbank transaction (without having to convince the to let me link\ntheir accounts to mine, with the process that takes like 2 days when they\ndeposit 2 different cent amounts...) just here within the retarded US\nbanking system... which has clearly realized the threat from\ncryptocurrencies as evidenced on many banker conferences this year.\n\nThey will come up with ways to allow us to do person to person transfers,\nbut this will surely be limited to transactions within the country,\ninternational remittances still have a great chance of being disrupted by\nBitcoin, if and only if, it will be cheap, otherwise the western unions and\nxooms of the world will still rule.\n\nPlease get out of our your academic cocoon for a bit, talk to real people,\ntry to convince them to use Bitcoin, and think how hard it will be to make\nthe sell if on top you tell them... \"it costs more... but it's\ndecentralized!\" LOL\n\nhttp://twitter.com/gubatron\n\nOn Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 5:34 PM, Adam Back \u003cadam at cypherspace.org\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e So if they dont care about decentralisation, they'll be happy using\n\u003e cheaper off-chain systems, right?\n\u003e\n\u003e Adam\n\u003e\n\u003e On 11 August 2015 at 22:30, Angel Leon \u003cgubatron at gmail.com\u003e wrote:\n\u003e \u003e tell that to people in poor countries, or even in first world countries.\n\u003e The\n\u003e \u003e competitive thing here is a deal breaker for a lot of people who have no\n\u003e \u003e clue/don't care for decentralization, they just want to send money from\n\u003e A to\n\u003e \u003e B, like email.\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e http://twitter.com/gubatron\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 5:23 PM, Adam Back via bitcoin-dev\n\u003e \u003e \u003cbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e \u003e\u003e\n\u003e \u003e\u003e I dont think Bitcoin being cheaper is the main characteristic of\n\u003e \u003e\u003e Bitcoin.  I think the interesting thing is trustlessness - being able\n\u003e \u003e\u003e to transact without relying on third parties.\n\u003e \u003e\u003e\n\u003e \u003e\u003e Adam\n\u003e \u003e\u003e\n\u003e \u003e\u003e\n\u003e \u003e\u003e On 11 August 2015 at 22:18, Michael Naber via bitcoin-dev\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003cbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e The only reason why Bitcoin has grown the way it has, and in fact the\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e only\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e reason why we're all even here on this mailing list talking about\n\u003e this,\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e is\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e because Bitcoin is growing, since it's \"better money than other\n\u003e money\".\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e One\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e of the key characteristics toward that is Bitcoin being inexpensive to\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e transact. If that characteristic is no longer true, then Bitcoin isn't\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e going\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e to grow, and in fact Bitcoin itself will be replaced by better money\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e that is\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e less expensive to transfer.\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e So the importance of this issue cannot be overstated -- it's compete\n\u003e or\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e die\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e for Bitcoin -- because people want to transact with global consensus\n\u003e at\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e high\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e volume, and because technology exists to service that want, then it's\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e going\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e to be met. This is basic rules of demand and supply. I don't\n\u003e necessarily\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e disagree with your position on only wanting to support uncontroversial\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e commits, but I think it's important to get consensus on the\n\u003e criticality\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e of\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e the block size issue: do you agree, disagree, or not take a side, and\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e why?\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 2:51 PM, Pieter Wuille \u003c\n\u003e pieter.wuille at gmail.com\u003e\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e wrote:\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e\u003e\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e\u003e On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 9:37 PM, Michael Naber via bitcoin-dev\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003cbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e\u003e\u003e Hitting the limit in and of itself is not necessarily a bad thing.\n\u003e The\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e\u003e\u003e question at hand is whether we should constrain that limit below\n\u003e what\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e\u003e\u003e technology is capable of delivering. I'm arguing that not only we\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e\u003e\u003e should\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e\u003e\u003e not, but that we could not even if we wanted to, since competition\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e\u003e\u003e will\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e\u003e\u003e deliver capacity for global consensus whether it's in Bitcoin or in\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e\u003e\u003e some\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e\u003e\u003e other product / fork.\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e\u003e\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e\u003e\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e\u003e The question is not what the technology can deliver. The question is\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e\u003e what\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e\u003e price we're willing to pay for that. It is not a boolean \"at this\n\u003e size,\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e\u003e things break, and below it, they work\". A small constant factor\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e\u003e increase\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e\u003e will unlikely break anything in the short term, but it will come with\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e\u003e higher\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e\u003e centralization pressure of various forms. There is discussion about\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e\u003e whether\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e\u003e these centralization pressures are significant, but citing that it's\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e\u003e artificially constrained under the limit is IMHO a misrepresentation.\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e\u003e It is\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e\u003e constrained to aim for a certain balance between utility and risk,\n\u003e and\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e\u003e neither extreme is interesting, while possibly still \"working\".\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e\u003e\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e\u003e Consensus rules are what keeps the system together. You can't simply\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e\u003e switch to new rules on your own, because the rest of the system will\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e\u003e end up\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e\u003e ignoring you. These rules are there for a reason. You and I may agree\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e\u003e about\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e\u003e whether the 21M limit is necessary, and disagree about whether we\n\u003e need\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e\u003e a\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e\u003e block size limit, but we should be extremely careful with change. My\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e\u003e position as Bitcoin Core developer is that we should merge consensus\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e\u003e changes\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e\u003e only when they are uncontroversial. Even when you believe a more\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e\u003e invasive\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e\u003e change is worth it, others may disagree, and the risk from\n\u003e disagreement\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e\u003e is\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e\u003e likely larger than the effect of a small block size increase by\n\u003e itself:\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e\u003e the\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e\u003e risk that suddenly every transaction can be spent twice (once on each\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e\u003e side\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e\u003e of the fork), the very thing that the block chain was designed to\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e\u003e prevent.\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e\u003e\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e\u003e My personal opinion is that we should aim to do a block size increase\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e\u003e for\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e\u003e the right reasons. I don't think fear of rising fees or unreliability\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e\u003e should\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e\u003e be an issue: if fees are being paid, it means someone is willing to\n\u003e pay\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e\u003e them. If people are doing transactions despite being unreliable,\n\u003e there\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e\u003e must\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e\u003e be a use for them. That may mean that some use cases don't fit\n\u003e anymore,\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e\u003e but\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e\u003e that is already the case.\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e\u003e\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e\u003e --\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e\u003e Pieter\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e\u003e\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e \u003e\u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e \u003e\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e \u003e\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150811/c51a5d14/attachment.html\u003e"}