{"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:2015-06-26\n📝 Original message:-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----\nHash: SHA1\n\nPieter,\n\nSure. Your thinking is sound. I take things beyond where you have in\nyour post, so I neither imply that this is your position or that this\nis the progression of your stated point.\n\nIn one sense, one has to ask the question: is there a reasonable case\nfor making Bitcoin super-capacitated so it can compete with Visa and\njust be the fastest-ever payment network with everyone jizzing in\ntheir pants over its speed and capacity and availability and dividends.\n\nBy virtue of the core requirement of decentralization, for Bitcoin to\nremain meaningful, it will never compete with Visa or the Fed's new\nblockchain-based payment system. So, why attempt the impossible and\nexpend energy on the futile?\n\nBitcoin's protocol and payment network has features and benefits that\nVisa et all cannot have, so I refute the notion, sometimes expressed\nhere, that 7tps is a major cap on growth and adoption.\n\nSuch thinking takes as its axiom the idea that increased adoption\ncorrelates to increased value. Not true. Look at the price chart for\nproof: More businesses accept and more people are using and\ntransacting via Bitcoin now than ever before and yet the price chart\npoints *down*, not up.\n\nWhy should any explicitly centralized exchange and business venture\nhave their use of the protocol facilitated? Was the protocol designed\nto conform to financial capital demands or was it designed to\nfundamentally change the way ordinary users interact with markets?\n\nIf those present here, do not realize that the blockchain is a means\nof escaping (and destroying through its use and promotion)\ncentralization, then they have shells over their eyes. Bitcoin is not\nmeant to fit into the system, it will evolve the system, by the system\ncoming to it.\n\nDoes that mean we shouldn't raise the blocksize? Maybe. But 8GB with\nBIP100's protections seems a reasonable change given the sudden\nincrease in network usage that a global liquidity crisis will impose.\n\nMany scenarios are possible, but there is no onus on developers or on\nBitcoin to \"keep up\". Like it or not, the global economy will\ninevitably be forced to Slow Down as a result of the same thinking\nthat upholds constant growth without sympathetic contraction.\n\nVenzen Khaosan\n\n\nOn 06/26/2015 09:09 PM, Pieter Wuille wrote:\n\u003e Hello all,\n\u003e \n\u003e here I'm going to try to address a part of the block size debate\n\u003e which has been troubling me since the beginning: the reason why\n\u003e people seem to want it.\n\u003e \n\u003e People say that larger blocks are necessary. In the long term, I\n\u003e agree - in the sense that systems that do not evolve tend to be\n\u003e replaced by other systems. This evolution can come in terms of\n\u003e layers on top of Bitcoin's blockchain, in terms of the technology\n\u003e underlying various aspects of the blockchain itself, and also in\n\u003e the scale that this technology supports.\n\u003e \n\u003e I do, however, fundamentally disagree that a fear for a change in \n\u003e economics should be considered to necessitate larger blocks. If it\n\u003e is, and there is consensus that we should adapt to it, then there\n\u003e is effectively no limit going forward. This is similar to how\n\u003e Congress voting to increase the copyright term retroactively from\n\u003e time to time is really no different from having an infinite\n\u003e copyright term in the first place. This scares me.\n\u003e \n\u003e Here is how Gavin summarizes the future without increasing block\n\u003e sizes in PR 6341:\n\u003e \n\u003e\u003e 1. Transaction confirmation times for transactions with a given\n\u003e\u003e fee\n\u003e will rise; very-low-fee transactions will fail to get confirmed at\n\u003e all.\n\u003e\u003e 2. Average transaction fee paid will rise 3. People or\n\u003e\u003e applications unwilling or unable to pay the rising fees\n\u003e will stop submitting transactions\n\u003e\u003e 4. People and businesses will shelve plans to use Bitcoin,\n\u003e\u003e stunting\n\u003e growth and adoption\n\u003e \n\u003e Is it fair to summarize this as \"Some use cases won't fit any\n\u003e more, people will decide to no longer use the blockchain for these\n\u003e purposes, and the fees will adapt.\"?\n\u003e \n\u003e I think that is already happening, and will happen at any scale. I \n\u003e believe demand for payments in general is nearly infinite, and only\n\u003e a small portion of it will eventually fit on a block chain\n\u003e (independent of whether its size is limited by consensus rules or\n\u003e economic or technological means). Furthermore, systems that compete\n\u003e with Bitcoin in this space already offer orders of magnitude more\n\u003e capacity than we can reasonably achieve with any blockchain\n\u003e technology at this point.\n\u003e \n\u003e I don't know what subset of use cases Bitcoin will cater to in the\n\u003e long term. They have already changed - you see way less betting\n\u003e transactions these days than a few years ago for example - and they\n\u003e will keep changing, independent of what effective block sizes we\n\u003e end up with. I don't think we should be afraid of this change or\n\u003e try to stop it.\n\u003e \n\u003e If you look at graphs of block sizes over time (for example, \n\u003e http://rusty.ozlabs.org/?p=498), it seems to me that there is very \n\u003e little \"organic\" growth, and a lot of sudden changes (which could \n\u003e correspond to changing defaults in miner software, introduction of \n\u003e popular sites/services, changes in the economy). I think these can\n\u003e be seen as the economy changing to full up the available space, and\n\u003e I believe these will keep happening at any size effectively\n\u003e available.\n\u003e \n\u003e None of this is a reason why the size can't increase. However, in\n\u003e my opinion, we should do it because we believe it increases utility\n\u003e and understand the risks; not because we're afraid of what might\n\u003e happen if we don't hurry up. And from that point of view, it seems\n\u003e silly to make a huge increase at once...\n\u003e \n\u003e -- Pieter\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\niQEcBAEBAgAGBQJVjWQAAAoJEGwAhlQc8H1mIRMH/Rr8v+N3XdAL/EeEXuniT+Iu\n/TrtieLJKrhmMPkyIX/jAWc4ggUirzWuTMIQZ7qPwOkVrbcWPcKKHOBKTmmUaCc5\nGdnA8wiiC6D6ZMamO1NKtkU2QW7Kzuna/Y4EeqBZWsKWPrMvu1vkirDYH8XRvdiC\nbMksVCzoRFm7QnTMYfimrSYNxNPdwQZxCfhtJDSBnJs2Mi0J68Xpw5riVbx6S0mD\nTOcNlKWosQJEub11TWeh+wD3i901t5GfxFqBNU5XGN85JRn+vAIrrm2io0bbfbIZ\ny58XdqcYcWrx8MQNUdHpQT1EK5+4DAkhxrouW60sjk8jfWHGIVIgfYweDQawbOg=\n=f9Fg\n-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----"}