{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1fx98zxt3lzspjs5f4msr0fxysx5euucm29ghysryju7vpc9j0jzqtcl2d8","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1fx98zxt3lzspjs5f4msr0fxysx5euucm29ghysryju7vpc9j0jzqtcl2d8","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2015-07-23\n📝 Original message:On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 6:17 PM, Tom Harding via bitcoin-dev\n\u003cbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e On 7/23/2015 5:17 AM, Jorge Timón via bitcoin-dev wrote:\n\u003e\n\u003e\u003e If the user expectation is that a price would never arise because\n\u003e\u003e supply is going to be increased ad infinitum and they will always be\n\u003e\u003e able to send fast in-chain bitcoin transactions for free, just like\n\u003e\u003e breath air (an abundant resource) for free, then we should change that\n\u003e\u003e expectation as soon as possible.\n\u003e\n\u003e No.  We should accept that reality may change, and we should promote\n\u003e understanding of that fact.\n\u003e\n\u003e We should not artificially manipulate the market \"as soon as possible,\"\n\u003e since we ourselves don't know much at all about how the market will\n\u003e unfold in the future.\n\nWe know perfectly well that the system will need to eventually be\nsustained by fees.\nWe should stop misinforming new users talking them about how bitcoin\ntransactions \"are free\", because they're clearly not.\n\n\u003e\u003e the criteria for the consensus block size should be purely based on\n\u003e\u003e technological capacity (propagation benchmarking, etc) and\n\u003e\u003e centralization concerns\n\u003e\n\u003e Right, purely these.  There is no place for artificially manipulating\n\u003e expectations.\n\nAm I \"artificially manipulating expectations\" ?\n\n\u003e\u003e they will simply advance the front and start another battle, because\n\u003e\u003e their true hidden faction is the \"not ever side\". Please, Jeff, Gavin,\n\u003e\u003e Mike, show me that I'm wrong on this point. Please, answer my question\n\u003e\u003e this time. If \"not now\", then when?\n\u003e\n\u003e Bitcoin has all the hash power.  The merkle root has effectively\n\u003e infinite capacity.  We should be asking HOW to scale the supporting\n\u003e information propagation system appropriately, not WHEN to limit the\n\u003e capacity of the primary time-stamping machine.\n\nTimestamping data using the blockchain is not the same as including\nthat the data in the blockchain itself because the later is a scarce\nresource.\nThe \"timestamping space\" is already unlimited today with no changes.\nYou can use a bitcoin transaction to timestamp an unbounded amount of\nexternal data using exactly 0 extra bytes in your transaction!\nHere's the code: https://github.com/Blockstream/contracthashtool\n\nAnd I'm very interested in scaling Bitcoin, I just disagree that\nchanging a constant is a \"scaling solution\".\n\nOn Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 6:28 PM, Gavin Andresen via bitcoin-dev\n\u003cbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 12:17 PM, Tom Harding via bitcoin-dev\n\u003e\u003e We haven't tried yet.  I can't answer for the people you asked, but\n\u003e\u003e personally I haven't thought much about when we should declare failure.\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e Yes! Lets plan for success!\n\nI extremely disagree that having a block limit is failure. It's a\ndesign decision to protect the system against centralization (which we\nwill be able to rise as we solve technical and centralization problems\nwe have today).\nBut thank you for being more clear about it now, Gavin. You won't stop\non a 8GB or 32GB limit because you think having ANY limit would be a\nfailure.\nIs that correct?\nIf not, can you please answer clearly when and why you think the\nblocksize should be lower than demand (when you will be ok with\nbitcoin users having to pay fees for the service they're enjoying)?\nIf your answer is \"never\", I would prefer to hear it from you than\njust concluding it by the lack of an answer."}