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
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
|
Return-Path: <opetruzel@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 19517112D
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 1 Sep 2015 02:30:46 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-oi0-f54.google.com (mail-oi0-f54.google.com
[209.85.218.54])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6DB31187
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 1 Sep 2015 02:30:45 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by oigk185 with SMTP id k185so70114760oig.2
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 31 Aug 2015 19:30:44 -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=NLZ/L9SgNg74I3iGTvG3cH1ZXoXT7A9pBrNOdWtcfng=;
b=gfxAfbX8sLs3IMU4kmEIQ7EnUy4ylHv3qJgh6GGYH8bJBousBH8bIoNOktivF4q7D+
dvpCloFqxMeiFjdYU4+N4XtYaHaK7yBz2R7mLABgbrg2tzOFOKsFV85o9w4Jt9oD6vIY
uI+4qF6mh65+SRPNt3vp+oaOKSBHgoGgVEXI3va2SQKBNzmRwLa7RAIw6jrNwSzsGOs6
7/2M1lxCGGFeZn0R6IZNd8w979vCkVHv94dzzCjdAwSUYjqbvaGIikGDz2FNVUsiHpka
5vgjtOlEgaVhGx5MRF+uv00wFPqJpd7ZkFxMaO7+moaTh8jM09YkWhzdYARq+UIn4Q+K
UZ4A==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.202.224.130 with SMTP id x124mr14774040oig.110.1441074644842;
Mon, 31 Aug 2015 19:30:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.76.57.195 with HTTP; Mon, 31 Aug 2015 19:30:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.76.57.195 with HTTP; Mon, 31 Aug 2015 19:30:44 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAKuKjyUpJOMdDCjGmo1tYc6sA3r69VAXpvzhMJ7EZSHtb9C9Sw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAEgR2PFB3h_8fr=d8HegRSD0XdooimhFKtLR4vKr2QXv+EwBfQ@mail.gmail.com>
<AD284610-4F40-445C-A074-CC94EDFFCBA8@gmx.com>
<CAAS2fgRs5NVM2nHKNXbgMJa51tDq-6ZBc6XfaScyP45UPWTW_g@mail.gmail.com>
<5CC48639-11D0-4682-BF82-443286C8E58D@gmx.com>
<CAAS2fgShF=2vtPrKtXmdA454s_xpJbxSB0SFBsstniHB8WtGzQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CAKuKjyUpJOMdDCjGmo1tYc6sA3r69VAXpvzhMJ7EZSHtb9C9Sw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2015 22:30:44 -0400
Message-ID: <CALhpmH2yH1csM8=sodLN5bdSm-hhoWsNVxHPHHsGRYUqFEzHVQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Oliver Petruzel <opetruzel@gmail.com>
To: Adam Ritter <aritter@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113d376a4cfe35051ea6564d
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] Your Gmaxwell exchange
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: Tue, 01 Sep 2015 02:30:46 -0000
--001a113d376a4cfe35051ea6564d
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>>>I would be OK with $100 transaction fee
Unless you're relying upon some hypothetical hyper-inflation of the USD,
how does one accept or justify such fees given the title (and intentions)
of Satoshi's own white paper and corresponding software?
I believe the key words "cash system" must be kept in mind throughout all
of these discussions and developments, or else we risk turning Bitcoin into
something other than cash.
Bitcoin will no longer be a P2P cash system if the fees make transactions
prohibitively expensive for all but the wealthiest of individuals and
corporations.
I understand that a careful balance must be struck between (measurable?)
decentralization and Bitcoin's use as an actual cash system; however, those
who are willing to annihilate the latter to maintain ONLY the former must
at least be honest with everyone that they really don't care if Bitcoin
becomes something entirely different than Satoshi's original invention and
intention.
Call it a necessary transformation or reinvention, and by a new name, if
you will; because, with exorbitant fees, it may no longer be accurate or
appropriate to call it Bitcoin: A Peer-to-peer Electronic CASH System.
Respectfully,
Oliver
On Aug 30, 2015 2:38 AM, "Adam Ritter via bitcoin-dev" <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> I don't really see any problem with the paper:
> All it states is that having the assumption that miners don't
> centralize, transaction fees don't go to zero even without the
> blocksize limit. I think we can accept this as a nice academic
> research, and I believe that it's true.
> Still, it doesn't have anything that is practical for me as an user of
> the Bitcoin network (I use it for storing long-term purchase value, as
> most of the people who I know): it doesn't help me if I still need to
> pay transaction fees after the blocksize limit is gone. My (and other
> users') main concern is about centralization, which has nothing to do
> with transaction fees. I would be OK with $100 transaction fee as
> well, as long as the network is fair and secure (which comes from
> decentralization).
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
--001a113d376a4cfe35051ea6564d
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<p dir=3D"ltr">>>>I would be OK with $100 transaction fee </p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">Unless you're relying upon some hypothetical hyper-infla=
tion of the USD, how does one accept or justify such fees given the title (=
and intentions) of Satoshi's own white paper and corresponding software=
?</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">I believe the key words "cash system" must be kept=
in mind throughout all of these discussions and developments, or else we r=
isk turning Bitcoin into something other than cash.</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">Bitcoin will no longer be a P2P cash system if the fees make=
transactions prohibitively expensive for all but the wealthiest of individ=
uals and corporations.</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">I understand that a careful balance must be struck between (=
measurable?) decentralization and Bitcoin's use as an actual cash syste=
m; however, those who are willing to annihilate the latter to maintain ONLY=
the former must at least be honest with everyone that they really don'=
t care if Bitcoin becomes something entirely different than Satoshi's o=
riginal invention and intention.</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">Call it a necessary transformation or reinvention, and by a =
new name, if you will; because, with exorbitant fees, it may no longer be a=
ccurate or appropriate to call it Bitcoin: A Peer-to-peer Electronic CASH S=
ystem.</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">Respectfully,<br>
Oliver</p>
<div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Aug 30, 2015 2:38 AM, "Adam Ritter via b=
itcoin-dev" <<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.or=
g">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>> wrote:<br type=3D"attribut=
ion"><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-le=
ft:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">I don't really see any problem with=
the paper:<br>
All it states is that having the assumption that miners don't<br>
centralize, transaction fees don't go to zero even without the<br>
blocksize limit. I think we can accept this as a nice academic<br>
research, and I believe that it's true.<br>
Still, it doesn't have anything that is practical for me as an user of<=
br>
the Bitcoin network (I use it for storing long-term purchase value, as<br>
most of the people who I know): it doesn't help me if I still need to<b=
r>
pay transaction fees after the blocksize limit is gone. My (and other<br>
users') main concern is about centralization, which has nothing to do<b=
r>
with transaction fees. I would be OK with $100 transaction fee as<br>
well, as long as the network is fair and secure (which comes from<br>
decentralization).<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.=
linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" =
rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail=
man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><br>
</blockquote></div>
--001a113d376a4cfe35051ea6564d--
|
