diff options
| author | Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com> | 2015-07-29 20:09:05 +0000 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | bitcoindev <bitcoindev@gnusha.org> | 2015-07-29 20:09:06 +0000 |
| commit | 740ebc55620b5c6a523b9b5236c9028555a98f10 (patch) | |
| tree | aff859e7dc1798ac9b3a96749df1639ca0574140 | |
| parent | ad3aa54fa68510c270a41c5b3c3de19158abe4d8 (diff) | |
| download | pi-bitcoindev-740ebc55620b5c6a523b9b5236c9028555a98f10.tar.gz pi-bitcoindev-740ebc55620b5c6a523b9b5236c9028555a98f10.zip | |
Re: [bitcoin-dev] Why Satoshi's temporary anti-spam measure isn't temporary
| -rw-r--r-- | 69/63533a16128bd60c95ef64eab3cc4ee185ba15 | 120 |
1 files changed, 120 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/69/63533a16128bd60c95ef64eab3cc4ee185ba15 b/69/63533a16128bd60c95ef64eab3cc4ee185ba15 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..8c7d4719b --- /dev/null +++ b/69/63533a16128bd60c95ef64eab3cc4ee185ba15 @@ -0,0 +1,120 @@ +Return-Path: <gmaxwell@gmail.com> +Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org + [172.17.192.35]) + by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6F74097 + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Wed, 29 Jul 2015 20:09:06 +0000 (UTC) +X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 +Received: from mail-io0-f172.google.com (mail-io0-f172.google.com + [209.85.223.172]) + by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EC674E9 + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Wed, 29 Jul 2015 20:09:05 +0000 (UTC) +Received: by ioeg141 with SMTP id g141so33159015ioe.3 + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Wed, 29 Jul 2015 13:09:05 -0700 (PDT) +DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; + h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to + :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; + bh=jNdi0lAimXx0Ix5eywNyqqwDReHfx6v/Qc0n2PUiczU=; + b=t6FzAz/mgfBKT9iYnqLokDg/xIQefNhJ8vFBAdY5lXNCXF8J5/FktpipLmFYixCwEc + AQIMNxXDLh8BBMAjpFtiJjqbr5M+0PiS5MuWbuFOIID33Jl3qpt2lVsMwQCKF0bLVO4w + tt+VBFU7L6hdklAIRx5En8KXC16XHq0JjnuwfCwHtz+LQ84es9etCBBWTKzkiN9BbPn4 + ZvSYfMVJVrwndA8GfkPVJo75yktng8jzooAGkPAMaW+i9Cu7LGwO/2nLjnBAhXT9tfW+ + hm0Rds7XsvpYLP6yLKPnF4vX8GKB8OoovalamMJCn+wAFckYREAwv7Sn3YtBtbfGk4j2 + GWKw== +MIME-Version: 1.0 +X-Received: by 10.107.169.138 with SMTP id f10mr4625431ioj.75.1438200545453; + Wed, 29 Jul 2015 13:09:05 -0700 (PDT) +Received: by 10.107.48.212 with HTTP; Wed, 29 Jul 2015 13:09:05 -0700 (PDT) +In-Reply-To: <37D282C2-EF9C-4B8B-91E8-7D613B381824@phauna.org> +References: <1B7F00D3-41AE-44BF-818D-EC4EF279DC11@gmail.com> + <CA+w+GKTfPXkVPaCC+3ZsQv=_DPMHoRwbigS40Testpyq4rZxsw@mail.gmail.com> + <D25BD175-7099-4A6B-89BB-A35E94F555A9@gmail.com> + <CA+w+GKTZV5sgXNU_xoBby1_X6eae=5_vhENmyKY0yxWHcBiU5g@mail.gmail.com> + <37D282C2-EF9C-4B8B-91E8-7D613B381824@phauna.org> +Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 20:09:05 +0000 +Message-ID: <CAAS2fgSaRqxi3X0J3F05nA-tyRRikY1whkpAOuGJJpFSAR017w@mail.gmail.com> +From: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com> +To: Owen <ogunden@phauna.org> +Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 +Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable +X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, + DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, + RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 +X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on + smtp1.linux-foundation.org +Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> +Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Why Satoshi's temporary anti-spam measure isn't + temporary +X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org +X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 +Precedence: list +List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org> +List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>, + <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe> +List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/> +List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> +List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help> +List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>, + <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe> +X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 20:09:06 -0000 + +On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 7:56 PM, Owen via bitcoin-dev +<bitcoin-dev@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 bitco= +in is merely one of a number of payment technologies. It's much more than t= +hat. 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 o= +f a transaction can't far surpass that of a PayPal or bank transfer. I pers= +onally would pay several multiples of the competitors' fees to continue usi= +ng 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 a= +bout bitcoin's advantages. We must be willing to let these use cases go any= +way, because we unfortunately don't have room on chain for everything anyon= +e 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 pa= +ypal 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. + |