1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
|
Return-Path: <kanzure@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 03B6325A
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 31 Jul 2015 15:27:49 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-la0-f43.google.com (mail-la0-f43.google.com
[209.85.215.43])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 21F19161
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 31 Jul 2015 15:27:48 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by lacct8 with SMTP id ct8so13225794lac.2
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 31 Jul 2015 08:27:46 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
:cc:content-type;
bh=eD+nDf/AgzvwAYd79wbUruwcV3Bs5k7XgQQOGj2XVXM=;
b=rBha8YF7yscffe9p/efFfQW/8Kiyp2tByAVHZ9OTEDlbEH3e/bieXwhbs7RbxVIw/K
SrQ3hn/YpGHvn0+jJxFFVTdHhABzrAK0f6RRc2XQLSgVsGQrSpp4bulwP38Qa5od4rQL
BwUJbTXJMHmzJ2DxP4BruWJ/G2dAEnYNp/tWUWTho4o84/CQRc4WNxUYq6f0lgtoD+BB
9hBOJ2sYqf5C50Bo2UO23tkzeSZT7mmg/CdwpDQ3y29x9KDpXTMaEyjjsbZkTBCqE7Nr
lBjWgHSYArXJRUXLpEUXdpA3snSuhKJGpZLtSNj9MMBNhPqz3mfZmey5l6R18qD9kfNB
9Aag==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.112.142.196 with SMTP id ry4mr3660119lbb.68.1438356466138;
Fri, 31 Jul 2015 08:27:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.152.18.166 with HTTP; Fri, 31 Jul 2015 08:27:45 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CABsx9T3FoErEeOtQcnK62WK=zOBREwRkxzDNLDniuvM+L5Shiw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1B7F00D3-41AE-44BF-818D-EC4EF279DC11@gmail.com>
<55B9EB68.9020703@mail.bihthai.net>
<CABm2gDpJjimF486qca=JGQ0h6k9qzike-hjVUU2NhOuCzbBkow@mail.gmail.com>
<2905605.OvbZMWuhGy@coldstorage>
<CABaSBaxyQja9bqDsyfWubR1R-Xf2tqmSmU-GW_z7VQTxbBagrQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CABsx9T3FoErEeOtQcnK62WK=zOBREwRkxzDNLDniuvM+L5Shiw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2015 10:27:45 -0500
Message-ID: <CABaSBaxEBkYPMmx5sXK7o5nNYiuxZJJ=ief_3AQ5G1hpcOkd1w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Bryan Bishop <kanzure@gmail.com>
To: Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com>, Bryan Bishop <kanzure@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0112bf7e39883b051c2d76f6
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,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 <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Why Satoshi's temporary anti-spam measure
isn'ttemporary
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2015 15:27:49 -0000
--089e0112bf7e39883b051c2d76f6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 10:55 AM, Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 11:24 AM, Bryan Bishop via bitcoin-dev <
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
>> Because any decentralized system is going to have high transaction costs
>> and scarcity anyway.
>
>
> This is a meme that keeps coming up that I think just isn't true.
>
Specifically I was replying to the argument that went like "the bitcoin
system, in any of its futures with a bunch of non-zero transaction fees, is
going to be replaced by a decentralized system that can commit to
transactions that have lower or zero transaction fees, and which also
otherwise provides the same benefits as bitcoin". My reply was that
decentralized systems are going to have physical limitations that force
their solutions to look certain ways, which would do something like, for
example, explain why there were "$10 fees" in that original scenario in the
first place. Your reply does not seem to share this context?
Also, I don't mean to start a discussion about internet architecture, but
ISP peering agreements do not look particularly like a cryptographic,
decentralized system to me at all. I agree that the internet needs better
architecture. I would call the IETF about this but I think Greg would be
the one to answer or something :-). Would be sorta redundant, heh.
- Bryan
http://heybryan.org/
1 512 203 0507
--089e0112bf7e39883b051c2d76f6
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On T=
hu, Jul 30, 2015 at 10:55 AM, Gavin Andresen <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=
=3D"mailto:gavinandresen@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">gavinandresen@gmail.c=
om</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"marg=
in:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class=3D"gm=
ail_extra"><span class=3D""><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Thu, Jul 30, 2015=
at 11:24 AM, Bryan Bishop via bitcoin-dev <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D=
"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin-de=
v@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"g=
mail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-l=
eft:1ex">Because any decentralized system is going to have high transaction=
costs and scarcity anyway.</blockquote></div><br></span>This is a meme tha=
t keeps coming up that I think just isn't true.</div><div class=3D"gmai=
l_extra"></div></blockquote></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br></div><div=
class=3D"gmail_extra">Specifically I was replying to the argument that wen=
t like "the bitcoin system, in any of its futures with a bunch of non-=
zero transaction fees, is going to be replaced by a decentralized system th=
at can commit to transactions that have lower or zero transaction fees, and=
which also otherwise provides the same benefits as bitcoin". My reply=
was that decentralized systems are going to have physical limitations that=
force their solutions to look certain ways, which would do something like,=
for example, explain why there were "$10 fees" in that original =
scenario in the first place. Your reply does not seem to share this context=
?=C2=A0</div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra=
">Also, I don't mean to start a discussion about internet architecture,=
but ISP peering agreements do not look particularly like a cryptographic, =
decentralized system to me at all. I agree that the internet needs better a=
rchitecture. I would call the IETF about this but I think Greg would be the=
one to answer or something :-). Would be sorta redundant, heh.</div><div c=
lass=3D"gmail_extra"><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_signature">- Bryan<br><a=
href=3D"http://heybryan.org/" target=3D"_blank">http://heybryan.org/</a><b=
r>1 512 203 0507</div>
</div></div>
--089e0112bf7e39883b051c2d76f6--
|
