{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1ac86vemj7ce5z8jyxt39rna3tvwql6xd30ha3vxcd6esysp23d9qrlswfj","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1ac86vemj7ce5z8jyxt39rna3tvwql6xd30ha3vxcd6esysp23d9qrlswfj","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2015-08-11\n📝 Original message:I dont think Bitcoin being cheaper is the main characteristic of\nBitcoin.  I think the interesting thing is trustlessness - being able\nto transact without relying on third parties.\n\nAdam\n\n\nOn 11 August 2015 at 22:18, Michael Naber via bitcoin-dev\n\u003cbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e The only reason why Bitcoin has grown the way it has, and in fact the only\n\u003e reason why we're all even here on this mailing list talking about this, is\n\u003e because Bitcoin is growing, since it's \"better money than other money\". One\n\u003e of the key characteristics toward that is Bitcoin being inexpensive to\n\u003e transact. If that characteristic is no longer true, then Bitcoin isn't going\n\u003e to grow, and in fact Bitcoin itself will be replaced by better money that is\n\u003e less expensive to transfer.\n\u003e\n\u003e So the importance of this issue cannot be overstated -- it's compete or die\n\u003e for Bitcoin -- because people want to transact with global consensus at high\n\u003e volume, and because technology exists to service that want, then it's going\n\u003e to be met. This is basic rules of demand and supply. I don't necessarily\n\u003e disagree with your position on only wanting to support uncontroversial\n\u003e commits, but I think it's important to get consensus on the criticality of\n\u003e the block size issue: do you agree, disagree, or not take a side, and why?\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 2:51 PM, Pieter Wuille \u003cpieter.wuille at gmail.com\u003e\n\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 9:37 PM, Michael Naber via bitcoin-dev\n\u003e\u003e \u003cbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e Hitting the limit in and of itself is not necessarily a bad thing. The\n\u003e\u003e\u003e question at hand is whether we should constrain that limit below what\n\u003e\u003e\u003e technology is capable of delivering. I'm arguing that not only we should\n\u003e\u003e\u003e not, but that we could not even if we wanted to, since competition will\n\u003e\u003e\u003e deliver capacity for global consensus whether it's in Bitcoin or in some\n\u003e\u003e\u003e other product / fork.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e The question is not what the technology can deliver. The question is what\n\u003e\u003e price we're willing to pay for that. It is not a boolean \"at this size,\n\u003e\u003e things break, and below it, they work\". A small constant factor increase\n\u003e\u003e will unlikely break anything in the short term, but it will come with higher\n\u003e\u003e centralization pressure of various forms. There is discussion about whether\n\u003e\u003e these centralization pressures are significant, but citing that it's\n\u003e\u003e artificially constrained under the limit is IMHO a misrepresentation. It is\n\u003e\u003e constrained to aim for a certain balance between utility and risk, and\n\u003e\u003e neither extreme is interesting, while possibly still \"working\".\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e Consensus rules are what keeps the system together. You can't simply\n\u003e\u003e switch to new rules on your own, because the rest of the system will end up\n\u003e\u003e ignoring you. These rules are there for a reason. You and I may agree about\n\u003e\u003e whether the 21M limit is necessary, and disagree about whether we need a\n\u003e\u003e block size limit, but we should be extremely careful with change. My\n\u003e\u003e position as Bitcoin Core developer is that we should merge consensus changes\n\u003e\u003e only when they are uncontroversial. Even when you believe a more invasive\n\u003e\u003e change is worth it, others may disagree, and the risk from disagreement is\n\u003e\u003e likely larger than the effect of a small block size increase by itself: the\n\u003e\u003e risk that suddenly every transaction can be spent twice (once on each side\n\u003e\u003e of the fork), the very thing that the block chain was designed to prevent.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e My personal opinion is that we should aim to do a block size increase for\n\u003e\u003e the right reasons. I don't think fear of rising fees or unreliability should\n\u003e\u003e be an issue: if fees are being paid, it means someone is willing to pay\n\u003e\u003e them. If people are doing transactions despite being unreliable, there must\n\u003e\u003e be a use for them. That may mean that some use cases don't fit anymore, but\n\u003e\u003e that is already the case.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e --\n\u003e\u003e Pieter\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\u003e"}