{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub13rv3raner7hu6npy7vxxvdswdapae65pnw8jjs4c80wtp2nmg4xq9cy5l4","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub13rv3raner7hu6npy7vxxvdswdapae65pnw8jjs4c80wtp2nmg4xq9cy5l4","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2015-08-11\n📝 Original message:Re: \"In my opinion the main source of disagreement is that one: how the\nmaximum block size limits centralization.\"\n\nI generally agree with that, but I would add that centralization is only a\ngoal insofar as it serves things like reliability, transaction integrity,\ncapacity, and accessibility. More broadly: how do you think that moving the\nblock size from 1MB to 8MB would materially impact these things?\n\nRe: \"That's why I cannot understand the urgency to rise the maximum size.\"\n\nThis issue is urgent because the difference between bitcoin being a success\nand it being forgotten hinges on it being \"better money\" than other money.\nIf people want a money that can process lots and lots of transactions at\nlow cost, they're going to get it so long as technology can give it to\nthem. While it's not critical we raise the block size this very moment\nsince we're not hitting the capacity wall right now, based on the way\ngrowth spikes in Bitcoin have occurred in the past we, may hit that\ncapacity wall soon and suddenly. And the moment we do, then Bitcoin may no\nlonger be \"better money\" since there's a big opportunity for other money\nwith higher throughput and lower fees to take its place.\n\nOn Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 2:45 PM, Jorge Timón \u003cjtimon at jtimon.cc\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e\n\u003e On Aug 11, 2015 8:55 PM, \"Michael Naber\" \u003cmickeybob at gmail.com\u003e wrote:\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e It generally doesn't matter that every node validate your coffee\n\u003e transaction, and those transactions can and will probably be moved onto\n\u003e offchain solutions in order to avoid paying the cost of achieving global\n\u003e consensus. But you still don't get to set the cost of global consensus\n\u003e artificially. Market forces will ensure that supply will meet demand there,\n\u003e so if there is demand for access to global consensus, and technology exists\n\u003e to meet that demand at a cost of one cent per transaction -- or whatever\n\u003e the technology-limited cost of global consensus happens to be -- then\n\u003e that's what the market will supply.\n\u003e\n\u003e Assuming we maintain any block size maximum consensus rule, the market\n\u003e will adapt to whatever maximum size is imposed by the consensus rules.\n\u003e For example, with the current demand and the current consensus block size\n\u003e maximum, the market has settled on a minimum fee of zero satoshis per\n\u003e transaction. That's why I cannot understand the urgency to rise the maximum\n\u003e size.\n\u003e\n\u003e In any case, yhe consensus maximum shouldn't be based on current or\n\u003e projected demand, only on centralization concerns, which is what the\n\u003e consensus rule serves for (to limit centralization).\n\u003e For example, Gavin advocates for 20 MB because he is not worried about how\n\u003e that could increase centralization because he believes it won't.\n\u003e I can't agree with that because I believe 20 MB could make mining\n\u003e centralization (and centralization in general) much worse.\n\u003e\n\u003e But if I have to chose between 2 \"centralization safe\" sizes, sure, the\n\u003e bigger the better, why not.\n\u003e In my opinion the main source of disagreement is that one: how the maximum\n\u003e block size limits centralization.\n\u003e\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150811/214ee358/attachment.html\u003e"}