Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org (smtp1.osuosl.org [140.211.166.138]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD86AC0011 for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2022 12:57:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3AAE813E6 for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2022 12:57:29 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.098 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FREEMAIL_REPLY=1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: smtp1.osuosl.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp1.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id J7AJ3MryGHqR for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2022 12:57:28 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 Received: from mail-ej1-x636.google.com (mail-ej1-x636.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::636]) by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 945D3813B5 for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2022 12:57:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ej1-x636.google.com with SMTP id p15so42536393ejc.7 for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2022 04:57:28 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=3cTX27af4NOzfwA3U8lKgaTBCXGBc1EAYqTjBOJNxPc=; b=gztfBfHAdoe5GK8GA7Uc0rSPsT25y2qIsl8LHBnb2fY9xWg07uMG7bk28B4ZBC+R5+ KOQyeZc+u5kuiO61Q+CDUFpokWtwvUV7cMlG/fu4pMRYoEJNM4lNEucD7VSLl71gBR7e p9C8Yv/jk5zvKRr8kPf/D1hprRS1HyLW1HN1eHb8IU4I1BLVAUx3VrH6EfrP3cSWjcI7 KFowMDZ6u3XZZEezYMrC+uAJFy5NerhBM9lSDvla+IC1XqbOv9g9mVeMC0sAxElXiOGG gSdX+frx8S+CLb4K1gb9iB8lANNp9hl2J63xSwmvFjb6xfbRlDBKR30RsCeYUZHz5dfH 0JgA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=3cTX27af4NOzfwA3U8lKgaTBCXGBc1EAYqTjBOJNxPc=; b=gnKmmLajkZngD8iTNf1GxvZUectbFQ4wkMYasXNxmMG2I/yWlB4vmwxYPIdGE5dVHl lwAqaXqS8C3nPiuD6LNnqB5EcIxuQpd++kHzdznwhlC8EXGlLtI7ZtOEV/DZrZ3ZEWBX Pe/qRIL+AKso1oixRBYhjLjPtVh1/BN6vzHD32UQ5cZ1SEt3L2IQomKNlccz6VC9K00/ JliVdOwey4GHRfROakkZOjZEZjML+2iLQKmkpIqmeeE/03dT5dOna0ah4wnO9IEs9as2 pb4ng4nLqBjiN63L6vyKpAAWaSG1Ty36z9GEr5WwPjiHzL1/ZyDiee1MEwg2nF/QN5Ov DcTw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5331z4oTVShiQApMBPnW3tKfFmG6AEmcDqroVSyV6PusvjBdLnDk 93NmQOINhHvaUXj3UQD+EFJaV7+nk8q5sgu1VH84XRPN X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJy9r8J/vUXgLgacGyhn7gZjrGUKHbjBQb3CoYzfXrF3mXmOcsYAW6oNuvbx4nOI7qIexTYLIQS+yXwnH/Prv3Q= X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:86cc:b0:6ce:698a:bc7 with SMTP id j12-20020a17090686cc00b006ce698a0bc7mr18922227ejy.709.1645534646601; Tue, 22 Feb 2022 04:57:26 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Billy Tetrud Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2022 06:57:15 -0600 Message-ID: To: Prayank , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000138e6b05d89ae48f" X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 22 Feb 2022 13:05:00 +0000 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Stumbling into a contentious soft fork activation attempt X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2022 12:57:29 -0000 --000000000000138e6b05d89ae48f Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > look at how lightning ate up fees to keep bitcoin stable, we can't "scale" too quickly either I strongly disagree with this. We should be scaling Bitcoin as fast as we can. There is no reason to delay scaling for the purposes of keeping fees high. If we need fees to be higher, we can lower the block size or increase the default minimum relay fee rate. Also, the idea that use of the LN is there primary cause of recent low fees is highly dubious. > the various new uses for on-chain transactions mentioned as a use-case arguably harms all existing users by competing for scarce blockchain space Reminds me of that old saying, "nobody goes there anymore, it's too crowded". ; ) On Mon, Feb 21, 2022, 03:54 Prayank via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > Goog morning ZmnSCPxj, > > Context: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=48.msg329#msg329 > > Maybe I should have rephrased it and quote Satoshi. I agree I should not > speak for others and it was not my intention in the email. > > > If Satoshi refuses to participate in Bitcoin development today, who > cares what his opinion is? > > I care about the opinions especially if consensus rules are not changed > and remain same as far as subsidy is concerned. > > > Satoshi is dead, long live Bitcoin. > > I object to such assumptions about the founder of Bitcoin. Satoshi is more > than a pseudonym and will stay alive forever. > > -- > Prayank > > A3B1 E430 2298 178F > > > > Feb 21, 2022, 14:32 by ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com: > > Good morning Prayank, > > (offlist) > > Satoshi > > > I object to the invocation of Satoshi here, and in general. > If Satoshi wants to participate in Bitcoin development today, he can speak > for himself. > If Satoshi refuses to participate in Bitcoin development today, who cares > what his opinion is? > Satoshi is dead, long live Bitcoin. > > > Aside from that, I am otherwise thinking about the various arguments being > presented. > > > Regards, > ZmnSCPxj > > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > --000000000000138e6b05d89ae48f Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

> look a= t how lightning ate up fees to keep bitcoin stable, we can't "scal= e" too quickly either

=
I strongly disagree with this. We should be scaling= Bitcoin as fast as we can. There is no reason to delay scaling for the pur= poses of keeping fees high. If we need fees to be higher, we can lower the = block size or increase the default minimum relay fee rate.

Also, the idea that use of the LN is the= re primary cause of recent low fees is highly dubious.

> the various new uses for on-chain trans= actions mentioned as a use-case arguably harms all existing users by compet= ing for scarce blockchain space

Reminds me of that old saying, "nobody goes there anymore, i= t's too crowded". ; )


<= div class=3D"gmail_quote">
On Mon, Feb= 21, 2022, 03:54 Prayank via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:<= br>
=20 =20 =20
Goog morning ZmnSCPxj,


Maybe I sho= uld have rephrased it and quote Satoshi. I agree I should not speak for oth= ers and it was not my intention in the email.
> If Satoshi refuses to participate in Bitcoin= development today, who cares what his opinion is?

I care about the opinions especially if cons= ensus rules are not changed and remain same as far as subsidy is concerned.=

> Satoshi is dea= d, long live Bitcoin.

I object to such assumptions about the founder of Bitcoin. Satoshi is mor= e than a pseudonym and will stay alive forever.

--
Prayank

A3B1 E430 2298 178F


<= /div>

Feb 21, 2022, 14:32 by ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com:
Good morning Prayank,

(offlist)
Satoshi

I object to the invocat= ion of Satoshi here, and in general.
If Satoshi wants to part= icipate in Bitcoin development today, he can speak for himself.
If Satoshi refuses to participate in Bitcoin development today, who care= s what his opinion is?
Satoshi is dead, long live Bitcoin.


Aside from that, I am otherwise t= hinking about the various arguments being presented.


Regards,
ZmnSCPxj

_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@= lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin= -dev
--000000000000138e6b05d89ae48f--