rich1.0npub13rv3raner7hu6npy7vxxvdswdapae65pnw8jjs4c80wtp2nmg4xq9cy5l4https://nostr.ae/npub13rv3raner7hu6npy7vxxvdswdapae65pnw8jjs4c80wtp2nmg4xq9cy5l4njumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2015-08-11 📝 Original message:It generally doesn't matter that every node validate your coffee transaction, and those transactions can and will probably be moved onto offchain solutions in order to avoid paying the cost of achieving global consensus. But you still don't get to set the cost of global consensus artificially. Market forces will ensure that supply will meet demand there, so if there is demand for access to global consensus, and technology exists to meet that demand at a cost of one cent per transaction -- or whatever the technology-limited cost of global consensus happens to be -- then that's what the market will supply. It would be like if Amazon suddenly said that they were going to be charging $5 / gb / month to store data in s3. Can't do it. Technology exists to bring about cloud storage at $0.01 / GB / month, so they don't just get to set the price different from the capabilities of technology or they'll get replaced by a competitor. Same applies to Bitcoin. On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 1:48 PM, Mark Friedenbach <mark at friedenbach.org> wrote: > Michael, why does it matter that every node in the world process and > validate your morning coffee transaction? Why does it matter to anyone > except you and the coffee vendor? > > On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 11:46 AM, Michael Naber via bitcoin-dev < > bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > >> Hi Jorge: Many people would like to participate in a global consensus >> network -- which is a network where all the participating nodes are aware >> of and agree upon every transaction. Constraining Bitcoin capacity below >> the limits of technology will only push users seeking to participate in a >> global consensus network to other solutions which have adequate capacity, >> such as BitcoinXT or others. Note that lightning / hub and spoke do not >> meet requirements for users wishing to participate in global consensus, >> because they are not global consensus networks, since all participating >> nodes are not aware of all transactions. >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 12:47 PM, Jorge Timón < >> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: >> >>> >>> On Aug 11, 2015 12:14 AM, "Thomas Zander via bitcoin-dev" < >>> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: >>> > >>> > On Monday 10. August 2015 13.55.03 Jorge Timón via bitcoin-dev wrote: >>> > > Gavin, I interpret the absence of response to these questions as a >>> > > sign that everybody agrees that there's no other reason to increase >>> > > the consensus block size other than to avoid minimum market fees from >>> > > rising (above zero). >>> > > Feel free to correct that notion at any time by answering the >>> > > questions yourself. >>> > > In fact if any other "big block size advocate" thinks there's more >>> > > reason I would like to hear their reasons too. >>> > >>> > See my various emails in the last hour. >>> >>> I've read them. I have read gavin's blog posts as well, several times. >>> I still don't see what else can we fear from not increasing the size >>> apart from fees maybe rising and making some problems that need to be >>> solved rewardless of the size more visible (like a dumb unbounded mempool >>> design). >>> >>> This discussion is frustrating for everyone. I could also say "This have >>> been explained many times" and similar things, but that's not productive. >>> I'm not trying to be obstinate, please, answer what else is to fear or >>> admit that all your feas are just potential consequences of rising fees. >>> >>> With the risk of sounding condescending or aggressive...Really, is not >>> that hard to answer questions directly and succinctly. We should all be >>> friends with clarity. Only fear, uncertainty and doubt are enemies of >>> clarity. But you guys on the "bigger blocks side" don't want to spread fud, >>> do you? >>> Please, prove paranoid people like me wrong on this point, for the good >>> of this discussion. I really don't know how else to ask this without >>> getting a link to something I have already read as a response. >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> bitcoin-dev mailing list >>> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org >>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> bitcoin-dev mailing list >> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org >> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150811/4b7c55dd/attachment.html>