{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub10plv6jx6pktpp5ezldnus6kj8ffg045g2kdjl78w23njrlveqy5s3pfaef","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub10plv6jx6pktpp5ezldnus6kj8ffg045g2kdjl78w23njrlveqy5s3pfaef","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2015-06-26\n📝 Original message:I'd argue that at the point where there's consistently more transactions \nthan the network can handle, there are two significant risks. Firstly, \nthat people don't care enough to pay the transaction fees required to \nget their transaction prioritised over another's, and secondly that as \ntransactions start outright failing (which will happen with enough \ntransactions backlogged) the network is considered unreliable, the \ncurrency illiquid, and there's a virtual \"bank rush\" to get into a more \nusable currency.\n\nI understand the desire to use current demand to model future, however I \nfeel there's a lack of understanding of just how inadequate the main \nchain is as a global clearance network. My go-to example for this is \nCHIPS (US-only, inter-bank only clearance) which already handles \nslightly over 3 transactions per second on average across a year \n(https://www.theclearinghouse.org/~/media/tch/pay%20co/chips/reports%20and%20guides/chips%20volume%20through%20may%202015.pdf?la=en). \nIf Bitcoin is to be used across a wider portion of the world's \npopulation, and/or beyond clearance between financial institutions, it \nneeds larger blocks. This is not about handling the several orders of \nmagnitude more transactions that would be required to replace credit \ncards or cash, but simply to enabling other technologies to perform that \nscaling.\n\nAlso, and I'm aware most on this list do understand the situation better \nthan this, I find it immensely frustrating to see people suggesting that \nGreece or other large groups should adopt Bitcoin, while there's clearly \ninadequate support (on chain or off) to do so.\n\nRoss\n\nOn 26/06/2015 19:34, Pieter Wuille wrote:\n\u003e\n\u003e \u003e If you wait until the need to increase block size\n\u003e\n\u003e It is this sentence I disagree with. Why would there be a need? \n\u003e Bitcoin provides utility at any block size, and potentially more with \n\u003e larger blocks.\n\u003e\n\u003e But no matter what, I believe the economy will adapt to what is \n\u003e available. And setting a precedent that increasing the size \"because \n\u003e of a need\" is reasonable is to me essentially the same as saying the \n\u003e size should forever scale to whatever people want.\n\u003e\n\u003e I believe the most important effect of a limit block size - people \n\u003e deciding not to use (on chain) Bitcoin transactions, is already \n\u003e happening, and it will keep happening at any scale.\n\u003e\n\u003e Either the resulting market is one which can live with high \n\u003e variability in confirmation times, and blocks will end up being nearly \n\u003e full. Or maybe the current fill level is what is acceptable, and we \n\u003e don't see much growth beyond this, only a change in what it is used for.\n\u003e\n\u003e -- \n\u003e Pieter\n\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\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150626/a81ace1f/attachment.html\u003e"}