MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <2905605.OvbZMWuhGy@coldstorage>
References: <1B7F00D3-41AE-44BF-818D-EC4EF279DC11@gmail.com>
	<55B9EB68.9020703@mail.bihthai.net>
	<CABm2gDpJjimF486qca=JGQ0h6k9qzike-hjVUU2NhOuCzbBkow@mail.gmail.com>
	<2905605.OvbZMWuhGy@coldstorage>
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 17:41:30 +0200
Message-ID: <CABm2gDrZvnzjs-02-E8BfTwqePWSxVAEdB+vFnByqYUNxw_W9w@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
To: Thomas Zander <thomas@thomaszander.se>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Why Satoshi's temporary anti-spam measure
	isn'ttemporary
Precedence: list

On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 4:52 PM, Thomas Zander via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> On Thursday 30. July 2015 11.38.00 Jorge Tim=C3=B3n via bitcoin-dev wrote=
:
>> It is important ro note that even if lightning was never developed, the
>> block size remains at 1 MB forever and fees rise to 10 usd per transacti=
on,
>> such "high fees" are still extremely competitive with non-decentralized
>> payment systems that have proportional fees.
>
>
> What makes you think that when there is such a low availability of transa=
ction
> space that paying to be included costs you $10, that Bitcoin is not going=
 to
> be outcompeted and replaced or otherwise regarded as worthless?

I'm just saying that rational economic actors will prefer to pay 10
usd over 11 usd in fees.
My example was: 10 usd flat fee vs 1% fee (both numbers pulled out of a hat=
).
Well, 10 usd fees is cheaper than 1% fees for any transacted amount
greater than 1000 usd.
Take into account that this is just an extreme example to make my
point: hopefully fees will never rise to a value as high as 10 usd.