Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E57F097 for ; Tue, 11 Aug 2015 19:53:58 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-wi0-f180.google.com (mail-wi0-f180.google.com [209.85.212.180]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1D1A9123 for ; Tue, 11 Aug 2015 19:53:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: by wijp15 with SMTP id p15so190558691wij.0 for ; Tue, 11 Aug 2015 12:53:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=fhzd1FR23vXpB511bLrDlW3T5qMyuPxNWQZfwaHk/So=; b=NsLqxL3IzFTeZ0tsdY0Dgk+oI/NWmfqNmx8RodBzIDS5UM1uAUINFZcYcO6NbHrvzv TlLoLBpWtF4hlC7PEYFSkKyuucq1e7joxvt+kj30q/qQAYHYIKWeM9VhsjRGzTZzGbgv Sa53ePourOlm1oPYEOzx/SdWjwrpZdH0+q9wONmNvDteZFCvvTi1lT5E4WibxRL6oFfk JyKc7ZEna9eTplSYuTN7ufeyFFtFaHt0Wpst18V3JVco21zqv6TBZoDm35wKWLulUXfN Dx+iCjARuupYs1Qr4Pc/QlcbZWiwEWW2BVbqa1Y+0voO4s/d8gY6DPN+C+whJoh1LNch tmqg== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnAc/mcSIkWdTlaCI5/jufDRITCtjNSAdr1ZdEEF3qlCG+oK+H93KYKFRgpdNis+n6/gWxO MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.180.37.74 with SMTP id w10mr37224174wij.92.1439322836737; Tue, 11 Aug 2015 12:53:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.194.31.230 with HTTP; Tue, 11 Aug 2015 12:53:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.194.31.230 with HTTP; Tue, 11 Aug 2015 12:53:56 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <8181630.GdAj0CPZYc@coldstorage> Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2015 21:53:56 +0200 Message-ID: From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= To: Michael Naber Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e89a8f64720f66c947051d0e7635 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,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 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Fees and the block-finding process X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2015 19:53:59 -0000 --e89a8f64720f66c947051d0e7635 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Aug 11, 2015 9:37 PM, "Michael Naber" wrote: > Hitting the limit in and of itself is not necessarily a bad thing. The question at hand is whether we should constrain that limit below what technology is capable of delivering. I'm arguing that not only we should not, but that we could not even if we wanted to, since competition will deliver capacity for global consensus whether it's in Bitcoin or in some other product / fork. You didn't answer the 2 questions... Anyway, if we don't care about centralization at all, we can just remove the limit: that's what "technology can provide". Maybe in that case it is developers who move to a decentralized competitor... > On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 2:27 PM, Jorge Tim=C3=B3n wrot= e: >> >> >> On Aug 11, 2015 8:46 PM, "Michael Naber" wrote: >> > >> > Hi Jorge: Many people would like to participate in a global consensus network -- which is a network where all the participating nodes are aware of and agree upon every transaction. Constraining Bitcoin capacity below the limits of technology will only push users seeking to participate in a global consensus network to other solutions which have adequate capacity, such as BitcoinXT or others. Note that lightning / hub and spoke do not meet requirements for users wishing to participate in global consensus, because they are not global consensus networks, since all participating nodes are not aware of all transactions. >> >> Even if you are right, first fees will raise and that will be what pushes people to other altcoins, no? >> Can we agree that the first step in any potentially bad situation is hitting the limit and then fees rising as a consequence? > > --e89a8f64720f66c947051d0e7635 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On Aug 11, 2015 9:37 PM, "Michael Naber" <mickeybob@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hitting the limit in and of itself is not necessarily a= bad thing. The question at hand is whether we should constrain that limit = below what technology is capable of delivering. I'm arguing that not on= ly we should not, but that we could not even if we wanted to, since competi= tion will deliver capacity for global consensus whether it's in Bitcoin= or in some other product / fork.

You didn't answer the 2 questions...
Anyway, if we don't care about centralization at all, we can just remov= e the limit: that's what "technology can provide".
Maybe in that case it is developers who move to a decentralized competitor.= ..

> On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 2:27 PM, Jorge Tim=C3=B3n <j= timon@jtimon.cc> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Aug 11, 2015 8:46 PM, "Michael Naber" <mickeybob@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi Jorge: Many people would like to participate in a global c= onsensus network -- which is a network where all the participating nodes ar= e aware of and agree upon every transaction.=C2=A0Constraining Bitcoin capa= city below the limits of technology will only push users seeking to partici= pate in a global consensus network to other solutions which have adequate c= apacity, such as BitcoinXT or others. Note that lightning / hub and spoke d= o not meet requirements for users wishing to participate in global consensu= s, because they are not global consensus networks, since all participating = nodes are not aware of all transactions.=C2=A0
>>
>> Even if you are right, first fees will raise and that will be what= pushes people to other altcoins, no?
>> Can we agree that the first step in any potentially bad situation = is hitting the limit and then fees rising as a consequence?
>
>

--e89a8f64720f66c947051d0e7635--