rich1.0npub1ac86vemj7ce5z8jyxt39rna3tvwql6xd30ha3vxcd6esysp23d9qrlswfjhttps://nostr.ae/npub1ac86vemj7ce5z8jyxt39rna3tvwql6xd30ha3vxcd6esysp23d9qrlswfjnjumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2015-08-11 📝 Original message: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 >