Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1YrqwE-0003CV-D7 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 11 May 2015 16:52:18 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of national.shitposting.agency designates 75.102.27.230 as permitted sender) client-ip=75.102.27.230; envelope-from=insecurity@national.shitposting.agency; helo=mail.cock.li; Received: from cock.li ([75.102.27.230] helo=mail.cock.li) by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.76) id 1YrqwD-0007cD-M0 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 11 May 2015 16:52:18 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Mon, 11 May 2015 16:52:10 +0000 From: insecurity@national.shitposting.agency To: thomasv@electrum.org In-Reply-To: <5550D8BE.6070207@electrum.org> References: <5550D8BE.6070207@electrum.org> Message-ID: X-Sender: insecurity@national.shitposting.agency User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/0.9.5 X-Spam-Score: -1.5 (-) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for sender-domain -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record X-Headers-End: 1YrqwD-0007cD-M0 Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Long-term mining incentives X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 11 May 2015 16:52:18 -0000 On 2015-05-11 16:28, Thomas Voegtlin wrote: > My problem is that this seems to lacks a vision. If the maximal block > size is increased only to buy time, or because some people think that 7 > tps is not enough to compete with VISA, then I guess it would be > healthier to try and develop off-chain infrastructure first, such as > the > Lightning network. If your end goal is "compete with VISA" you might as well just give up and go home right now. There's lots of terrible proposals where people try to demonstrate that so many hundred thousand transactions a second are possible if we just make the block size 500GB. In the real world with physical limits, you literally can not verify more than a few thousand ECDSA signatures a second on a CPU core. The tradeoff taken in Bitcoin is that the signatures are pretty small, but they are also slow to verify on any sort of scale. There's no way competing with a centralised entity using on-chain transactions is even a sane goal.