{"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\nYour concern for adoption is valid yet there are a few assumptions in\nyour discussion and they are a common thread in the current wave of\n\"bigger blocksize\" topics.\n\n1) Supplying bigger blocks will meet the demand of more people:\n\nAnyone can transact via Bitcoin. By increasing blocksize and making\nmore transactions possible at low fees, what's to stop a large\ncorporation, bank or government from using the protocol as a cheap\nsettlement mechanism. They don't have to fund or develop their own\n(well, Ecuador has, for this exact use-case) and perhaps the utility\nand capacity of the Bitcoin network means reliability and low fees\n(cheaper than a bank clearance, say) for their use-case. In the\nprocess they hog xMB of space in each block and discussion about a\ncapacity limit continues in this list. Increased supply *will* be\nutilized - by all kinds of entities - not only the girl next-door and\nthe unbanked proletariat.\n\n2) Dissatisfied users will move to alt-coins so Bitcoin better be\ncareful...\n\nThe assumption here is that the best skills and most able minds are\nfairly evenly distributed amongst alt-coin dev teams. I doubt this is\ntrue and the notion underestimates the quality of developer that is\nattracted to Bitcoin Core to apply themselves to this project, often\nself-funded. There are few (if any) comparable cryptocurrencies or cc\ndev teams out there. Hence the Bitcoin market cap, the large\nstakeholder industry, and the established brand.\n\n3) Bitcoin is better money.\n\nYes, indeed. It's genius and revolution. Yet, it does not fit every\nuse-case. I know people don't like it when I make this example, but\nit's the truth where I live, and by extension, in many places in the\nworld:\n\nI live in rural Southeast Asia. Some houses have electricity and some\ndon't: by choice, because rural lifestyle in the tropics does not\nalways require you to have electricity. People charge their mobile\nphones at the community eating house every other day. The electricity\nsupply is unreliable. I've had to rig a solar charging system to a\nUPS, but most people around here have no choice but to deal with\nintermittent power cuts. The local market has a diesel generator, so\nconstant electricity, but if a power cut lasts for long enough the\nlocal cellular mast battery backup depletes and then there is no\ncellular connectivity - the only means of accessing the internet.\n\nNow, how does one expect this community to use or adopt\ncryptocurrency? They are mostly unbanked, get paid fiat wages at the\nend of the week and spend fiat on commodities, rent, food and\nentertainment like the rest of the world. But Bitcoin is not a \"better\nmoney\" in their case, and who knows for how long this condition will\nremain true.\n\n4) TBD\n\nThe notion that there be dragons at the capacity limit is unfounded\nand reactionary. We have to make the journey and find out what is, in\nfact, there at the edge - as many others have argued in the list. This\nis our opportunity to make scientific observation and discovery for\nthe benefit of Bitcoin - while it is still in its early years and the\ncapacity limit untested.\n\nWho knows? The outcome may be an informed decision to implement bigger\nblocks. Informed. Based not on fear and uncertainty but on empirical\nobservation and facts.\n\n\n\nOn 08/12/2015 04:39 AM, Michael Naber via bitcoin-dev wrote:\n\u003e Sure, most people probably would be happy with cheaper off-chain \n\u003e systems. There already are and will probably continue to be more \n\u003e transactions happening off-chain partly for this very reason.\n\u003e That's not the issue we're trying to address though: The main chain\n\u003e is the lynch-pin to the whole system. We've got to do a good job\n\u003e meeting demand that people have for wanting to utilize the\n\u003e main-chain, or else we'll risk being replaced by some other\n\u003e main-chain solution that does it better.\n\u003e \n\u003e On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 4:34 PM, Adam Back \u003cadam at cypherspace.org \n\u003e \u003cmailto:adam at cypherspace.org\u003e\u003e wrote:\n\u003e \n\u003e So if they dont care about decentralisation, they'll be happy\n\u003e using 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 \n\u003e \u003cmailto:gubatron at gmail.com\u003e\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\u003e tell that to people in poor countries, or even in first world\n\u003e countries. The\n\u003e\u003e competitive thing here is a deal breaker for a lot of people who\n\u003e have no\n\u003e\u003e clue/don't care for decentralization, they just want to send\n\u003e\u003e money\n\u003e from 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\n\u003e \u003cmailto:bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\u003e\u003e \n\u003e\u003e\u003e I dont think Bitcoin being cheaper is the main characteristic\n\u003e\u003e\u003e of Bitcoin.  I think the interesting thing is trustlessness -\n\u003e\u003e\u003e being able 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\n\u003e \u003cmailto:bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e The only reason why Bitcoin has grown the way it has, and in\n\u003e fact the\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e only reason why we're all even here on this mailing list\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e talking\n\u003e about this,\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e is because Bitcoin is growing, since it's \"better money than\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e other\n\u003e money\".\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e One of the key characteristics toward that is Bitcoin being\n\u003e inexpensive to\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e transact. If that characteristic is no longer true, then\n\u003e Bitcoin isn't\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e going to grow, and in fact Bitcoin itself will be replaced by\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e better\n\u003e money\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e that is 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\n\u003e compete or\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e die for Bitcoin -- because people want to transact with\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e global\n\u003e consensus at\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e high volume, and because technology exists to service that\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e want,\n\u003e then it's\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e going to be met. This is basic rules of demand and supply. I\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e don't\n\u003e necessarily\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e disagree with your position on only wanting to support\n\u003e 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 the block size issue: do you agree, disagree, or not take\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e a\n\u003e 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\n\u003e \u003cpieter.wuille at gmail.com \u003cmailto:pieter.wuille at gmail.com\u003e\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\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e bitcoin-dev \u003cbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e \u003cmailto:bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e\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\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e bad\n\u003e thing. The\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e question at hand is whether we should constrain that\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e limit\n\u003e below what\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e technology is capable of delivering. I'm arguing that not\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e only we should not, but that we could not even if we\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e wanted to, since\n\u003e competition\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e will deliver capacity for global consensus whether it's\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e in Bitcoin\n\u003e or in\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e some 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\n\u003e question is\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e what price we're willing to pay for that. It is not a\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e boolean \"at\n\u003e this size,\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e things break, and below it, they work\". A small constant\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e factor increase will unlikely break anything in the short\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e term, but it will\n\u003e come with\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e higher centralization pressure of various forms. There is\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e discussion\n\u003e about\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e whether these centralization pressures are significant, but\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e citing\n\u003e that it's\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e artificially constrained under the limit is IMHO a\n\u003e misrepresentation.\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e It is constrained to aim for a certain balance between\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e utility and\n\u003e risk, and\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e neither extreme is interesting, while possibly still\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e \"working\".\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e \n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e Consensus rules are what keeps the system together. You\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e can't\n\u003e simply\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e switch to new rules on your own, because the rest of the\n\u003e system will\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e end up ignoring you. These rules are there for a reason.\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e You and I\n\u003e may agree\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e about whether the 21M limit is necessary, and disagree\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e about whether\n\u003e we need\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e a block size limit, but we should be extremely careful\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e with\n\u003e change. My\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e position as Bitcoin Core developer is that we should merge\n\u003e consensus\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e changes only when they are uncontroversial. Even when you\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e believe a more invasive change is worth it, others may\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e disagree, and the risk from\n\u003e disagreement\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e is likely larger than the effect of a small block size\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e increase\n\u003e by itself:\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e the risk that suddenly every transaction can be spent twice\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e (once\n\u003e on each\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e side of the fork), the very thing that the block chain was\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e designed to 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\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e size\n\u003e increase\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e for the right reasons. I don't think fear of rising fees\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e or\n\u003e unreliability\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e should be an issue: if fees are being paid, it means\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e someone is\n\u003e willing to pay\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e them. If people are doing transactions despite being\n\u003e unreliable, there\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e must be a use for them. That may mean that some use cases\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e don't fit\n\u003e anymore,\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e but that is already the case.\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 _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e mailing list bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e \u003cmailto:bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e \n\u003e\u003e\u003e \n\u003e\u003e\u003e _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev\n\u003e\u003e\u003e mailing list bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e \u003cmailto:bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\u003e\u003e \n\u003e\u003e \n\u003e \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\niQEcBAEBAgAGBQJVyuNYAAoJEGwAhlQc8H1mUwgH/0//DMUJ7E5npMYLg5HA1cPa\nDM0o9L/Dwp5LN/Pn1gnCQr/57YyvcVYxCbI7QCAgwocz3WhL58DOPe+4XxKoqAz0\nBoDp54rBEEWTv7E944LhyTHyhx4Fv4ZTSsGAoBOBQxcZL5Xn5zxwGoMQNBJAsB19\nypYwy3n6hlwYNblyIKVQNmpvN4bb1/KG3r7BarSUM+xBZ/wsTFT49nomFttn/nIo\nHW0jfLQ4qjFWEbXvI0vn96HHziH9ijE08bRbEtPyW/cmaznWh1sWuRbYwvmKTyPn\ng0f4iJW0xmEHo43grYutjNwayRFwdc1BEPho4HSTCpcJFOemrF7hCHXdgWsaVEM=\n=x1Hf\n-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----"}