Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 16331BB3 for ; Sat, 27 Jun 2015 10:20:04 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail.bihthai.net (unknown [5.255.87.165]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 640EA121 for ; Sat, 27 Jun 2015 10:20:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.8.0.6] (unknown [10.8.0.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: venzen) by mail.bihthai.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6D6B92038C; Sat, 27 Jun 2015 12:20:38 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <558E78CB.7070207@mail.bihthai.net> Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2015 17:19:55 +0700 From: Venzen Khaosan Organization: Bihthai Bai Mai User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: NxtChg , bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org References: <20150627074259.GA25420@amethyst.visucore.com> <20150627095501.C59B541A40@smtp.hushmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20150627095501.C59B541A40@smtp.hushmail.com> OpenPGP: id=1CF07D66; url=pool.sks-keyservers.net Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] The need for larger blocks X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: venzen@mail.bihthai.net List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2015 10:20:04 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Advocations of "formalizing the process" may have a good outcome, but that is not the issue in the current dilemma. The present process is good enough. And that's as much as we can hope for. The issue is: does Bitcoin need to scale to business or does business need to scale to Bitcoin. Business is not the Holy Spirit that fills Bitcoin with utility. Bitcoin already has utility and finance capital would like to ride that utility for its own profit motive. Some posters, here in this list, would like to accelerate that process and they justify their argument with the assumption that greater adoption equals greater utility and value (and price). That is a false assumption. Given the increased adoption of Bitcoin by users and businesses during the past year, does the price chart reflect greater value or price? Of course not, the price chart is at terminal lows. Fact not fiction. It is a fiction of common "market wisdom" that greater adoption increases a commodity's value. Speculation plays with commodity value even when underlying fundamental value remains unchanged. China has verifiably been purchasing record amounts of Gold, but there is no effect in the price chart (or on Gold's objective value). Bitcoin's price chart will go up and down many times in the coming years as speculators play their game. It's independent of the underlying censorship resistance, mathematical consensus and transaction security of Bitcoin. Once the decentralization is sacrificed to big business then you can expect the final price chart low. Until then, let's hold our horses and maintain an even keel: Bitcoin is not trying to fit into the manic global economy's race toward the edge of a precipice - Bitcoin is the solution once its all gone wrong - - for ordinary users, not opportunistic bank-based business models such as JPMorgan, Pantera Capital or BTC-China. If you cannot see the inherent centralization problem with most so-called Bitcoin businesses you just haven't done your homework. On 06/27/2015 04:55 PM, NxtChg wrote: > > On 6/27/2015 at 10:43 AM, "Wladimir J. van der Laan" > wrote: > >> It has been disappointing and scary to see political pressure >> tactics being used to change a distributed consensus system. > > That's why some people are advocating formalizing the process. > Political pressure will happen anyway, whether somebody likes it or > not. It's better to deal with it in the open. > > >> They cannot be changed willy-nilly according to needs of some >> groups, much less than lower gravity can be legislated to help >> the airline industry. > > Except the block size is not gravity. It's more like an arbitrary > decision to limit planes' wingspan to the most typical hangar door > of 1940. > > And now we have a "controversy" that we can't have modern planes > out of the fear they won't fit into some of the old hangars. > > And to continue with this nice example, some people are even > arguing that "the demand for flight is, essentially, limitless, so > why bother making larger jets at all?" > > > _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing > list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJVjnjHAAoJEGwAhlQc8H1m7CMH/273H3C7tnL56jJZ6U9RMbSN dp2dPLusMJAvjWKiM/P5VjbcXnvARFuA3foIkzlxGdt2mvGlddW+b2x9YVZcDAZz k9V/IccOmVVEvIpfaP0Awe6H9H8+Gr1PpFWuaFExcem9T9bF6kVGV4o0g6EGzwVe rGJb0radm2qdWTKvUNvjXAF3kGRtoewFmTZBwyE6R6AxE7tvs/4Zvsf99+EQsD+o 3NZFlXX0gvPmaR7TWK0iOGlgns9MmKMm94xk8lHkESvW0NCMwTw6I0Pz74usPDte U0lWkZBoKFWkEuf6ChVOOoSdSbYFrOwa0uaiJtPWJB+9TiwZdZbDJumW3uqYG5M= =4vVg -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----