From: Thomas Zander <thomas@thomaszander.se>
To: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 09:54:24 +0200
Message-ID: <1754831.BkYoPF5aHZ@pluto>
User-Agent: KMail/4.14.1 (Linux/3.16.0-4-amd64; KDE/4.14.2; x86_64; ; )
In-Reply-To: <CABm2gDq+2mXEN2hZY6_JYXAJX=Wxrxr6jm86P6g2YD4zzy-=Nw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABsx9T16fH+56isq95m4+QWsKwP==tf75ep8ghnEcBoV4OtZJA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CALgxB7sQM5ObxyxDiN_BOyJrgsgfQ6PAtJi52dJENfWCRKywWg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABm2gDq+2mXEN2hZY6_JYXAJX=Wxrxr6jm86P6g2YD4zzy-=Nw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Fees and the block-finding process
Precedence: list

On Tuesday 11. August 2015 21.27.46 Jorge Tim=F3n wrote:
> Can we agree that the first step in any potentially bad situation is
> hitting the limit and then fees rising as a consequence?

Fees rising due to scarcity has nothing to do with the problem. Its a=20=

consequence that is irrelevant to me.

Bad situations are roughly divided into two parts;
 * technical
 * marketing.

The technical part is that we already know of several technical=20
solutions we=20
will need when we have a forever growing backlog. Without them, nodes=20=

will=20
crash.
On top of that, we can expect a lot of new problems we don't know yet.

IT experts are serious when they say that they avoid maxing out a=20
system like=20
the plague.


Marketing wise full blocks means we can only serve 3 transactions a=20
second.=20
Which is beyond trivial. All the banks, nasdaq, countries, businesses=20=

etc etc=20
now contemplating using Bitcoin itself will see this as a risk too big =
to=20
ignore and the 1Mb Bitcoin will loose 99% of its perceived value.

If you want fees to rise, then it should be viable to be used, withing =
6=20
months, for something bigger than the economic size of Iceland.=20
(=3Drandom=20
smallest country I know).

--=20
Thomas Zander