{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1du3xh5wgds32a5fweqkd9k45kh30wl7kv2kyu8ugz9c2ztdg00tqqvyg93","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1du3xh5wgds32a5fweqkd9k45kh30wl7kv2kyu8ugz9c2ztdg00tqqvyg93","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2015-08-12\n📝 Original message:On Tuesday 11. August 2015 21.27.46 Jorge Timón wrote:\n\u003e Can we agree that the first step in any potentially bad situation is\n\u003e hitting the limit and then fees rising as a consequence?\n\nFees rising due to scarcity has nothing to do with the problem. Its a \nconsequence that is irrelevant to me.\n\nBad situations are roughly divided into two parts;\n * technical\n * marketing.\n\nThe technical part is that we already know of several technical \nsolutions we \nwill need when we have a forever growing backlog. Without them, nodes \nwill \ncrash.\nOn top of that, we can expect a lot of new problems we don't know yet.\n\nIT experts are serious when they say that they avoid maxing out a \nsystem like \nthe plague.\n\n\nMarketing wise full blocks means we can only serve 3 transactions a \nsecond. \nWhich is beyond trivial. All the banks, nasdaq, countries, businesses \netc etc \nnow contemplating using Bitcoin itself will see this as a risk too big to \nignore and the 1Mb Bitcoin will loose 99% of its perceived value.\n\nIf you want fees to rise, then it should be viable to be used, withing 6 \nmonths, for something bigger than the economic size of Iceland. \n(=random \nsmallest country I know).\n\n-- \nThomas Zander"}