rich1.0npub1f2nvlx49er5c7sqa43src6ssyp6snd4qwvtkwm5avc2l84cs84esecrwethttps://nostr.ae/npub1f2nvlx49er5c7sqa43src6ssyp6snd4qwvtkwm5avc2l84cs84esecrwetnjumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2015-07-29 📝 Original message:On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 7:56 PM, Owen via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > On July 29, 2015 7:15:49 AM EDT, Mike Hearn via bitcoin-dev: >>Consider this: the highest Bitcoin tx fees can possibly go is perhaps >>a >>little higher than what our competition charges. Too much higher than >>that, >>and people will just say, you know what .... I'll make a bank transfer. >>It's cheaper and not much slower, sometimes no slower at all. > > I respectfully disagree with this analysis. The implication is that bitcoin is merely one of a number of payment technologies. It's much more than that. It's sound money, censorship resistance, personal control over money, programmable money, and more. Without these attributes it's merely a really inefficient way to do payments. > > Given these advantages, there is no reason to believe the marginal cost of a transaction can't far surpass that of a PayPal or bank transfer. I personally would pay several multiples of the competitors' fees to continue using bitcoin. > > Sure, some marginal use cases will drop off with greater fees, but that's normal and expected. These will be use cases where the user doesn't care about bitcoin's advantages. We must be willing to let these use cases go anyway, because we unfortunately don't have room on chain for everything anyone might want to do. > > Therefore, bitcoin tx fees can go much higher than the competition. > > Remember how Satoshi referenced the banking crisis in his early work? The 2008 banking crisis was about a lot of things, but high credit card and paypal fees wasnt one of them. There's more going on here than just payments. Any speculative economic analysis would do better to include this fact. Precisely. And as "just a payment system" Bitcoin is not an especially great one: The design requirements for decenteralization impose considerable costs. To the extent that the technology in Bitcoin is useful at all for building "just another payment system" this technology in in the process of being agressively copied by parties with deep fiat relationships (including in partnership with centeral banks). If the focus for Bitcoin's competative advantage becomes exclusively "better" payments then it will almost certinatly fail in the market-place against competing systems which avoid the Bitcoin currency adoption related obsticles (but also gain none of Bitcoin's important social/political promise). Also, critically, if Bitcoin's security properties are manintained and enhanced then Bitcoin can be used to build secure systems which _also_ accomidate those applications and we can have both. But if Bitcoin's security properties are not strong then then advanced tools cannot be built for it. E.g. atomic swaps make trustless trades with external systems possible; but they are especially sensitive to long reorginizations by miners... so they can only be securely used where those reorgs are infeasable. So while I agree that we must be willing to tolerate not catching every conceivable use case; most of the time all that means is addressing them via a less direct but more focused solution rather than ignoring them completely.