{"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:2015-08-11\n📝 Original message:On Aug 11, 2015 8:46 PM, \"Michael Naber\" \u003cmickeybob at gmail.com\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\n\u003e Hi Jorge: Many people would like to participate in a global consensus\nnetwork -- which is a network where all the participating nodes are aware\nof and agree upon every transaction. Constraining Bitcoin capacity below\nthe limits of technology will only push users seeking to participate in a\nglobal consensus network to other solutions which have adequate capacity,\nsuch as BitcoinXT or others. Note that lightning / hub and spoke do not\nmeet requirements for users wishing to participate in global consensus,\nbecause they are not global consensus networks, since all participating\nnodes are not aware of all transactions.\n\nEven if you are right, first fees will raise and that will be what pushes\npeople to other altcoins, no?\nCan we agree that the first step in any potentially bad situation is\nhitting the limit and then fees rising as a consequence?\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150811/b23a80e6/attachment.html\u003e"}