From: Thomas Zander <thomas@thomaszander.se>
To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 18:07:40 +0200
Message-ID: <1689926.ZjkxyJjokn@coldstorage>
User-Agent: KMail/4.14.1 (Linux/3.16.0-4-amd64; KDE/4.14.2; x86_64; ; )
In-Reply-To: <CABaSBaxyQja9bqDsyfWubR1R-Xf2tqmSmU-GW_z7VQTxbBagrQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1B7F00D3-41AE-44BF-818D-EC4EF279DC11@gmail.com>
	<2905605.OvbZMWuhGy@coldstorage>
	<CABaSBaxyQja9bqDsyfWubR1R-Xf2tqmSmU-GW_z7VQTxbBagrQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Why Satoshi's temporary anti-spam measure
	isn'ttemporary
Precedence: list

On Thursday 30. July 2015 10.24.07 Bryan Bishop wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 9:52 AM, Thomas Zander via bitcoin-dev <
> 
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > What makes you think that when there is such a low availability of
> > transaction
> > space that paying to be included costs you $10, that Bitcoin is not going
> > to
> > be outcompeted and replaced or otherwise regarded as worthless?
> 
> Ah, well that's simple. Because any decentralized system is going to have
> high transaction costs and scarcity anyway.

I've been doing system design for about 10 years and I can understand your 
initial response.

I have to disagree with you, though.  Surely decentralized adds an overhead, 
but in its place it adds replication, redundancy and very cheap expansion of 
capacity.

Remember when we went from single-core CPUs to multi-core (and 
hyperthreading)? Developers were saying it was useless because all apps were 
still single-threaded.  And now, 15 years later, there are fantastic 
frameworks to make this easy.

Same will happen with distributed. Any assumption you wrote above is not 
inherent in the technology.

-- 
Thomas Zander