rich1.0npub1c8flqlwmkh5vehm7rfcacurk9x5ggv36vtra2p97thynzfq0vxus5zgzt8https://nostr.ae/npub1c8flqlwmkh5vehm7rfcacurk9x5ggv36vtra2p97thynzfq0vxus5zgzt8njumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2015-08-11 📝 Original message:tell that to people in poor countries, or even in first world countries. The competitive thing here is a deal breaker for a lot of people who have no clue/don't care for decentralization, they just want to send money from A to B, like email. http://twitter.com/gubatron On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 5:23 PM, Adam Back via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > I dont think Bitcoin being cheaper is the main characteristic of > Bitcoin. I think the interesting thing is trustlessness - being able > to transact without relying on third parties. > > Adam > > > On 11 August 2015 at 22:18, Michael Naber via bitcoin-dev > <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > The only reason why Bitcoin has grown the way it has, and in fact the > only > > reason why we're all even here on this mailing list talking about this, > is > > because Bitcoin is growing, since it's "better money than other money". > One > > of the key characteristics toward that is Bitcoin being inexpensive to > > transact. If that characteristic is no longer true, then Bitcoin isn't > going > > to grow, and in fact Bitcoin itself will be replaced by better money > that is > > less expensive to transfer. > > > > So the importance of this issue cannot be overstated -- it's compete or > die > > for Bitcoin -- because people want to transact with global consensus at > high > > volume, and because technology exists to service that want, then it's > going > > to be met. This is basic rules of demand and supply. I don't necessarily > > disagree with your position on only wanting to support uncontroversial > > commits, but I think it's important to get consensus on the criticality > of > > the block size issue: do you agree, disagree, or not take a side, and > why? > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 2:51 PM, Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille at gmail.com> > > wrote: > >> > >> On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 9:37 PM, Michael Naber via bitcoin-dev > >> <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > >>> > >>> Hitting the limit in and of itself is not necessarily a bad thing. The > >>> question at hand is whether we should constrain that limit below what > >>> technology is capable of delivering. I'm arguing that not only we > should > >>> not, but that we could not even if we wanted to, since competition will > >>> deliver capacity for global consensus whether it's in Bitcoin or in > some > >>> other product / fork. > >> > >> > >> The question is not what the technology can deliver. The question is > what > >> price we're willing to pay for that. It is not a boolean "at this size, > >> things break, and below it, they work". A small constant factor increase > >> will unlikely break anything in the short term, but it will come with > higher > >> centralization pressure of various forms. There is discussion about > whether > >> these centralization pressures are significant, but citing that it's > >> artificially constrained under the limit is IMHO a misrepresentation. > It is > >> constrained to aim for a certain balance between utility and risk, and > >> neither extreme is interesting, while possibly still "working". > >> > >> Consensus rules are what keeps the system together. You can't simply > >> switch to new rules on your own, because the rest of the system will > end up > >> ignoring you. These rules are there for a reason. You and I may agree > about > >> whether the 21M limit is necessary, and disagree about whether we need a > >> block size limit, but we should be extremely careful with change. My > >> position as Bitcoin Core developer is that we should merge consensus > changes > >> only when they are uncontroversial. Even when you believe a more > invasive > >> change is worth it, others may disagree, and the risk from disagreement > is > >> likely larger than the effect of a small block size increase by itself: > the > >> risk that suddenly every transaction can be spent twice (once on each > side > >> of the fork), the very thing that the block chain was designed to > prevent. > >> > >> My personal opinion is that we should aim to do a block size increase > for > >> the right reasons. I don't think fear of rising fees or unreliability > should > >> be an issue: if fees are being paid, it means someone is willing to pay > >> them. If people are doing transactions despite being unreliable, there > must > >> be a use for them. That may mean that some use cases don't fit anymore, > but > >> that is already the case. > >> > >> -- > >> Pieter > >> > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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/cc54f99b/attachment.html>