Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B326C83D for ; Fri, 24 Jul 2015 06:30:32 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-oi0-f47.google.com (mail-oi0-f47.google.com [209.85.218.47]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ABEE48D for ; Fri, 24 Jul 2015 06:30:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: by oigd21 with SMTP id d21so12121545oig.1 for ; Thu, 23 Jul 2015 23:30:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=FV2niKzBpBUBfg3Rqysz/cVBblVnebZr7DVD17h/9ck=; b=mjqpdMC/gsScq5L96cAszLnJAuM64LaGOENgcSS3HjGOQSbaIwVO/CkvCME8bBruEe +DVve6CzMEjsqAxMFzB8LegDIfncEf8nUuZOSfIiq90Al5KtDUFU22xwh7EQi5nuQH3l HlggwjMuDV9+aUJGU9gDbnN73C8IuIXuMmZF82s6RJ7WwubzlS8GLWvpxI0aUxYnrCtb TI+iPk0JkpmxolK7S374iCkInibaJYZ7E6Uh6rF5RrmxNFlR/gPw8nWwx2Yj/jgQ9Gvq zJPYNIbvD8IqI/DpwokHZ6ViW6dgP2jOErlzixw9jIPa9+LFst9PnzsRUwKqPQvYG/Fr IB0A== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmu2paZ6pDUIqCcG09V95ecuGbc5Xple/YCEA+hfLWx65EiSSnlp1/SAbgTc75Boa1F5Fp8 X-Received: by 10.182.210.234 with SMTP id mx10mr5280130obc.1.1437719430008; Thu, 23 Jul 2015 23:30:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.89] (99-8-65-117.lightspeed.davlca.sbcglobal.net. [99.8.65.117]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id f8sm4383984obv.25.2015.07.23.23.30.27 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 23 Jul 2015 23:30:28 -0700 (PDT) To: =?UTF-8?Q?Jorge_Tim=c3=b3n?= References: <55B113AF.40500@thinlink.com> From: Tom Harding X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110 Message-ID: <55B1DB84.6070001@thinlink.com> Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 23:30:28 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,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@lists.linuxfoundation.org Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin Core and hard forks X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2015 06:30:32 -0000 On 7/23/2015 10:51 AM, Jorge Timón wrote: > We know perfectly well that the system will need to eventually be > sustained by fees. Fee revenue can rise just as easily without increased BTC fee rates. Two avenues that are just as effective: increased exchange rate, increased number of fee-paying transactions. Neither of these avenues benefits from increased "fee pressure" (scarcity of block space). > I just disagree that changing a constant is a "scaling solution". > Nobody here thinks that. Even on Reddit, not very many people seem to think that.