rich1.0npub1du3xh5wgds32a5fweqkd9k45kh30wl7kv2kyu8ugz9c2ztdg00tqqvyg93https://nostr.ae/npub1du3xh5wgds32a5fweqkd9k45kh30wl7kv2kyu8ugz9c2ztdg00tqqvyg93njumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2015-08-12 📝 Original message:On Tuesday 11. August 2015 21.27.46 Jorge Timón wrote: > Can we agree that the first step in any potentially bad situation is > hitting the limit and then fees rising as a consequence? Fees rising due to scarcity has nothing to do with the problem. Its a consequence that is irrelevant to me. Bad situations are roughly divided into two parts; * technical * marketing. The technical part is that we already know of several technical solutions we will need when we have a forever growing backlog. Without them, nodes will crash. On top of that, we can expect a lot of new problems we don't know yet. IT experts are serious when they say that they avoid maxing out a system like the plague. Marketing wise full blocks means we can only serve 3 transactions a second. Which is beyond trivial. All the banks, nasdaq, countries, businesses etc etc now contemplating using Bitcoin itself will see this as a risk too big to ignore and the 1Mb Bitcoin will loose 99% of its perceived value. If you want fees to rise, then it should be viable to be used, withing 6 months, for something bigger than the economic size of Iceland. (=random smallest country I know). -- Thomas Zander