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
|
Return-Path: <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D8967323
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 24 Jul 2015 09:24:07 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-wi0-f174.google.com (mail-wi0-f174.google.com
[209.85.212.174])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 46110155
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 24 Jul 2015 09:24:04 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by wibxm9 with SMTP id xm9so20144912wib.0
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 24 Jul 2015 02:24:02 -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=1b0bEJWsnm/LvAqcs1AphDgmNWkI/Mq4yyfy6Bp+jXk=;
b=hFDU+Z6JKeIRc9WjWLyttEwhjd2DsX1WKwG9aHrep6Rvhxykj2D4Z/KxDADabP1YVd
dIN2evYUYABtaqceoNIn1etimrEmvcfOIgtte0EDtFp9xqF7HspWUAzxcA/NsRmwAFf5
LqaXJFsVpSunJDGYntZOue2vSQF0gxl2y9GqQNjBGOJRkUVIduQx1L+KvHl8r224rN8S
h/46AkAuMf9oqZkXULFiw7qGm6jkklhsRue2KLIf/XB1LAtr5X7pmGXIabPyGLzMgfv2
0T7C/0a9oQRYqCAxwUF7iqQJN4ycQPIdpfVie5cinebf0Ev/JvqIHgEZzNCBV8RSfK9e
AJ7Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmstvKLO+9kDWkR7yLVaEnSXErfBui4plODw3QHL/QXjUW7qtXCvfd8KR4W9dDUd5S2WIw1
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.194.120.198 with SMTP id le6mr24780462wjb.133.1437729842647;
Fri, 24 Jul 2015 02:24:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.194.95.168 with HTTP; Fri, 24 Jul 2015 02:24:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.194.95.168 with HTTP; Fri, 24 Jul 2015 02:24:01 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <55B1DB84.6070001@thinlink.com>
References: <CAPg+sBgs-ouEMu=LOVCmOyCGwfM1Ygxooz0shyvAuHDGGZYfJw@mail.gmail.com>
<CAPg+sBgugLSVEwDLXhgey86_rM2fTjGWXFuXsiZioJKCZiHiNg@mail.gmail.com>
<CADm_WcbnQQGZoQ92twfUvbzqGwu__xLn+BYOkHPZY_YT1pFrbA@mail.gmail.com>
<CAPWm=eW8RgrG1CMEAMN4GeiMjZecFvNtZB_Y4rZNeofWSD0=Wg@mail.gmail.com>
<CADm_WcYCUHs9Qe_T6WJOCUSK6stXYD8v6z5JcGHfRMURoOSFTA@mail.gmail.com>
<CABm2gDq3JyZx0QCRDbcNSLSOBKdpi4h_7VN1XL8N42U38+eBAA@mail.gmail.com>
<55B113AF.40500@thinlink.com>
<CABm2gDp5-D3r=0rbq28-h8ewyHY8Rj9B0AFjO1fWfyuUEDMMfg@mail.gmail.com>
<55B1DB84.6070001@thinlink.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2015 11:24:01 +0200
Message-ID: <CABm2gDqPvK8_eoMxv2hnVHw6H=xXdeugzTPJZEPUcwmpn-ZSKQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
To: Tom Harding <tomh@thinlink.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e011600028dea8d051b9b9080
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@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin Core and hard forks
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, 24 Jul 2015 09:24:08 -0000
--089e011600028dea8d051b9b9080
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Jul 24, 2015 8:30 AM, "Tom Harding" <tomh@thinlink.com> wrote:
>
> On 7/23/2015 10:51 AM, Jorge Tim=C3=B3n wrote:
> > We know perfectly well that the system will need to eventually be
> > sustained by fees.
>
> Fee revenue can rise just as easily without increased BTC fee rates.
>
> Two avenues that are just as effective: increased exchange rate,
> increased number of fee-paying transactions. Neither of these avenues
> benefits from increased "fee pressure" (scarcity of block space).
>
Why do you expect users to "increase the number of fee-paying transactions"
if their free transactions reliably get mined relatively fast?
And if it's good that they pay fees, why is not good when the reason they
do it is because there's limited space in the block? Is user's paying fees
soon a good thing or the "catastrophe" we need to avoid by rising the block
size, what is it? Or is there something else wrong with having a limit
other than "fees will hurt short-term adoption"? I'm confused about your
position now...
Regarding "increasing the exchange rate" it would be really nice to just
push a button and double bitcoin's price just before the next subsidy
halving, but unfortunately that's something out of our control.
--089e011600028dea8d051b9b9080
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<p dir=3D"ltr"><br>
On Jul 24, 2015 8:30 AM, "Tom Harding" <<a href=3D"mailto:tomh=
@thinlink.com">tomh@thinlink.com</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> On 7/23/2015 10:51 AM, Jorge Tim=C3=B3n wrote:<br>
> > We know perfectly well that the system will need to eventually be=
<br>
> > sustained by fees.<br>
><br>
> Fee revenue can rise just as easily without increased BTC fee rates.<b=
r>
><br>
> Two avenues that are just as effective: increased exchange rate,<br>
> increased number of fee-paying transactions.=C2=A0 Neither of these av=
enues<br>
> benefits from increased "fee pressure" (scarcity of block sp=
ace).<br>
></p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">Why do you expect users to "increase the number of fee-=
paying transactions" if their free transactions reliably get mined rel=
atively fast?<br>
And if it's good that they pay fees, why is not good when the reason th=
ey do it is because there's limited space in the block? Is user's p=
aying fees soon a good thing or the "catastrophe" we need to avoi=
d by rising the block size, what is it? Or is there something else wrong wi=
th having a limit other than "fees will hurt short-term adoption"=
? I'm confused about your position now...</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">Regarding "increasing the exchange rate" it would =
be really nice to just push a button and double bitcoin's price just be=
fore the next subsidy halving, but unfortunately that's something out o=
f our control.</p>
--089e011600028dea8d051b9b9080--
|
