Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2102\))
From: Will Madden <will.madden@bridge21inc.com>
In-Reply-To: <55D7606F.3050501@olivere.de>
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2015 12:07:56 -0600
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <ABDE1ED5-F181-4F16-8210-4FAF80DD750C@bridge21inc.com>
References: <CA+1nnrk1EWd7rhwj91p1rqgGVFgOT4UYq=+Nmq41sHJYmy7YYA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAS2fgR4bsJtC99-fK1L+FsQT7vOfOpz9FOVqvAnqbpkaRJHLQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<BE291934-F40A-4163-834C-6B3FFBD7C4E0@petertodd.org>
	<CADJgMzucVKgQQtzwBNMcU3Vy=ae+2jMQY=am_xYXcKtyforpUg@mail.gmail.com>
	<3B2A58B3-6AF6-4F1C-A6FA-7AEC97F48AD0@petertodd.org>
	<CAHcfU-XrSA6p_2AJJ1W6KmatkEZdvh1W4ruA-upq4wPWoaJTNQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADJgMzuBKauAX_tf4ZCxtErfz9Rq7ri3=8S9ZiKou6CPwP8cQw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAHcfU-U2KHmaDUvtASY5+oHE1OmEzHG8MZcx_ar6uM2oCU5Smw@mail.gmail.com>
	<55D7250D.5@olivere.de>
	<B9E226E5-D7E7-4DC8-BCA7-64431523F318@bridge21inc.com>
	<55D7606F.3050501@olivere.de>
To: Oliver Egginger <bitcoin@olivere.de>
Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Core Devs : can you share your thoughts about all
	BIPs on this website ?
Precedence: list

I=E2=80=99m replying all just because my point was changed in your =
response.

> As a protocol Bitcoin could support millions of full nodes. What you
> talking about is the number of shareholders. But these are poorly
> determined by the block size. The number of shareholders is determined
> by many parameter but manly by the decreasing-supply algorithm. Which
> "was chosen because it approximates the rate at which commodities like
> gold are mined". See: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Controlled_supply


  I am not talking about "shareholders=E2=80=9D who own bitcoin, or the =
supply of bitcoin at all.  I=E2=80=99m talking about active users of =
bitcoin.  I don=E2=80=99t care if they send 10,000 BTC, or .01 BTC, =
usage is adoption.  Putting a 1MB cap on block size caps transaction =
volume, which by definition blocks adoption and use. =20

> While the decreasing-supply algorithm of Bitcoin has many advantage =
it's
> very hard to believe that the block chain will ever reach mass =
adoption.
> Even after 6 years, hardly anyone owns Bitcoins. Like Gold Bitcoin is
> distributed in large blocks to a few. Exceptions prove the rule. In =
the
> last 6 years the 1MB limit has been sufficient. I don't think that we
> will hit the 8MB limit in the next 6 years, except for stress tests =
and
> spam.


You can think what you like, but I find your position on this specious.  =
You don=E2=80=99t know if we will hit that limit in the next 6 years.  =
All it takes is one moderately successful application and we could be =
hitting that limit with very little warning.  It could be open bazaar, =
or something else.  Stating that =E2=80=9Ceven after 6 years, hardly =
anyone owns Bitcoins.=E2=80=9D as a justification that it will stay =
small doesn=E2=80=99t hold water either in terms of common sense or when =
looking at other standards evolving through history.  TCP/IP was =
declared as a standard by the US Military in 1982 and became a public =
standard in 1985.  Normal people didn=E2=80=99t start using TCP/IP until =
much later, when Mark Andreessen created the Mosaic internet browser, =
the precursor to Netscape.  It was released in 1993.  Widespread use =
didn=E2=80=99t really kick in until the second half of that decade.  The =
reference bitcoin client was released in January 2009.  So it=E2=80=99s =
basically 1988 for bitcoin, if we use the internet as a proxy - one way =
to look at it.  The telephone even took 50 years to become widespread.=20=


> I don't think that a relative tight block size could harm Bitcoin
> middle-term. Only experienced users penetrate the block chain =
directly.
> They know what they are doing and deal with problems. When space for
> transactions starts to become scarce and the fees rise too much, the
> developers have enough time to make a change. It would then also not =
so
> controversial. A matter of a few days or weeks. Especially if all
> necessary preparations have already been taken.


This is insane.  You actually believe this?  Capping the block size at =
1MB doesn=E2=80=99t just cause fees to rise.  It caps transactions that =
can be performed.  This caps the number of users who can access bitcoin, =
directly cuts demand, which kills the price, which kills the mining, and =
BAM Rome falls.  Only experienced users can =E2=80=9Cpenetrate=E2=80=99 =
the block chain directly?  Seriously?  You download a software =
application, or sign up for a web wallet, buy some bitcoin on an =
exchange or have a friend send you some, and send it.  Try bread wallet. =
 My mom can do it.  She is in her 70=E2=80=99s and couldn=E2=80=99t =
program a VCR 20 years ago.

I am just going to stop here.  I really hope you change the way you are =
looking at bitcoin.  This is not what it was meant to be, and if it ever =
becomes this, I=E2=80=99m not going to be interested in it.

> On Aug 21, 2015, at 11:31 AM, Oliver Egginger <bitcoin@olivere.de> =
wrote:
>=20
> Am 21.08.2015 um 15:34 schrieb Will Madden:
>> Keeping the block size at 1mb restricts the number of active users of =
bitcoin to around 100,000 people transacting twice a day on blockchain. =20=

>> BItcoin is a protocol.  Protocols are successful because of their =
network effect.  Capping the block size freezes bitcoin=E2=80=99s =
network effect, limits users and prevents new users from joining (which =
will cut demand to exchange bitcoin) and also freeze the economic =
incentive to mine, because it will hurt the price. =20
>=20
> As a protocol Bitcoin could support millions of full nodes. What you
> talking about is the number of shareholders. But these are poorly
> determined by the block size. The number of shareholders is determined
> by many parameter but manly by the decreasing-supply algorithm. Which
> "was chosen because it approximates the rate at which commodities like
> gold are mined". See: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Controlled_supply
>=20
> While the decreasing-supply algorithm of Bitcoin has many advantage =
it's
> very hard to believe that the block chain will ever reach mass =
adoption.
> Even after 6 years, hardly anyone owns Bitcoins. Like Gold Bitcoin is
> distributed in large blocks to a few. Exceptions prove the rule. In =
the
> last 6 years the 1MB limit has been sufficient. I don't think that we
> will hit the 8MB limit in the next 6 years, except for stress tests =
and
> spam.
>=20
>> Freezing bitcoin=E2=80=99s growth for any meaningful length of time =
will
>> threaten its position as the leading cryptocurrency.
>=20
> I don't think that a relative tight block size could harm Bitcoin
> middle-term. Only experienced users penetrate the block chain =
directly.
> They know what they are doing and deal with problems. When space for
> transactions starts to become scarce and the fees rise too much, the
> developers have enough time to make a change. It would then also not =
so
> controversial. A matter of a few days or weeks. Especially if all
> necessary preparations have already been taken.
>=20
> But I know that my opinion is very different from other claims. =
However,
> reliable people share some more fatalism as I'm currently find in some
> parts of the the Bitcoin community. Fear is a very bad adviser and can
> make a genius stupid.
>=20
> - oliver
>=20