📅 Original date posted:2015-08-11
📝 Original message:-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Hello, I thought these were good points, but I have a couple questions..
.
On 08/11/2015 12:08 AM, Mark Friedenbach via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 11:31 PM, Thomas Zander via bitcoin-dev
> <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> <mailto:bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org>> wrote:
>
> On Monday 10. August 2015 23.03.39 <tel:2015%2023.03.39> Mark
> Friedenbach wrote:
>> This is where things diverge. It's fine to pick a new limit or
>> growth trajectory. But defend it with data and reasoned
>> analysis.
>
> We currently serve about 0,007% of the world population sending
> maybe one transaction a month. This can only go up.
>
> There are about 20 currencies in the world that are unstable and
> showing early signs of hyperinflation. If even small percentage of
> these people cash-out and get Bitcoins for their savings you'd have
> the amount of people using Bitcoin as savings go from maybe half a
> million to 10 million in the space of a couple of months. Why so
> fast? Because all the world currencies are linked. Practically all
> currencies follow the USD, and while that one may stay robust and
> standing, the linkage has been shown in the past to cause
> chain-effects.
>
> It is impossible to predict how much uptake Bitcoin will take, but
> we have seen big rises in price as Cyprus had a bailin and then
> when Greece first showed bad signs again. Lets do our due diligence
> and agree that in the current world economy there are sure signs
> that people are considering Bitcoin on a big scale.
>
> Bigger amount of people holding Bitcoin savings won't make the
> transaction rate go up very much, but if you have feet on the
> ground you already see that people go back to barter in countries
> like Poland, Ireland, Greece etc. And Bitcoin will be an
> alternative to good to ignore. Then transaction rates will go up.
> Dramatically.
>
> If you are asking for numbers, that is a bit tricky. Again; we are
> at 0,007%... Thats like a f-ing rounding error in the world
> economy. You can't reason from that. Its like using a float to do
> calculations that you should have done in a double and getting
> weird output.
>
> Bottom line is that a maximum size of 8Mb blocks is not that odd.
> Because a 20 times increase is very common in a "company" that is
> about 6 years old. For instance Android was about that age when it
> started to get shipped by non- Google companies. There the increase
> was substantially bigger and the company backing it was definitely
> able to change direction faster than the Bitcoin oiltanker can
> change direction.
>
> ...
>
> Another metric to remember; if you follow hackernews (well, the
> incubator more than the linked articles) you'd be exposed to the
> thinking of these startups. Their only criteria is growth. and this
> is rather substantial growth. Like 150% per month. Naturally, most
> of these build on top of html or other existing technologies. But
> the point is that exponential growth is expected in any startup.
> They typically have a much much more agressive timeline, though.
> Every month instead of every year. Having exponential growth in the
> blockchain is really not odd and even if we have LN or sidechains
> or the next changetip, this space will be used. And we will still
> have scarcity.
>
>
> I'm sorry, I really don't want to sound like a jerk, but not a
> single word of that mattered. Yes we all want Bitcoin to scale such
> that every person in the world can use it without difficulty.
> However if that were all that we cared about then I would be remiss
> if I did not point out that there are plenty of better, faster, and
> cheaper solutions to finding global consensus over a payment ledger
> than Bitcoin. Architectures which are algorithmically superior in
> their scaling properties. Indeed they are already implemented and
> you can use them today:
>
> https://www.stellar.org/ http://opentransactions.org/
>
> So why do I work on Bitcoin, and why do I care about the outcome of
> this debate? Because Bitcoin offers one thing, and one thing only
> which alternative architectures fundamentally lack: policy
> neutrality. It can't be censored, it can't be shut down, and the
> rules cannot change from underneath you. *That* is what Bitcoin
> offers that can't be replicated at higher scale with a SQL database
> and an audit log.
>
> It follows then, that if we make a decision now which destroys
> that property, which makes it possible to censor bitcoin, to deny
> service, or to pressure miners into changing rules contrary to user
> interests, then Bitcoin is no longer interesting. We might as well
> get rid of mining at that point and make Bitcoin look like Stellar
> or Open-Transactions because at least then we'd scale even better
> and not be pumping millions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere from
> running all those ASICs.
>
> On the other side, 3Tb harddrives are sold, which take 8Mb blocks
> without problems.
>
>
> Straw man, storage is not an issue.
>
>
> You can buy broadband in every relevant country that easily
> supports the bandwidth we need. (remember we won't jump to 8Mb in a
> day, it will likely take at least 6 months).
>
>
> Neither one of those assertions is clear. Keep in mind the goal is
> to have Bitcoin survive active censorship. Presumably that means
> being able to run a node even in the face of a hostile ISP or
> government. Furthermore, it means being location independent and
> being able to move around. In many places the higher the bandwidth
> requirements the fewer the number of ISPs that are available to
> service you, and the more visible you are.
>
> It may also be necessary to be able to run over Tor. And not just
> today's Tor which is developed, serviced, and supported by the US
> government, but a Tor or I2P that future governments have turned
> hostile towards and actively censor or repress. Or existing
> authoritative governments, for that matter. How much bandwidth
> would be available through those connections?
>
> It may hopefully never be necessary to operate under such
> constraints, except by freedom seeking individuals within existing
> totalitarian regimes. However the credible threat of doing so may
> be what keeps Bitcoin from being repressed in the first place. Lose
> the capability to go underground, and it will be pressured into
> regulation, eventually.
Bitcoin (as well as the internet, and the world wide web) is already
regulated around the world.
There used to be a map that documented this fairly well, called
bitlegal (bitlegal.net) but the site is now parked or offline. There
is an alternative visual picture of the subject at:
http://is.gd/vFgYrf
The upshot of that is that web wallets (which are popularized due to
convenience) cannot be considered to provide users with control over
their money - extended discussion on this here in the bitcoin.org
repository:
https://github.com/bitcoin-dot-org/bitcoin.org/issues/996
My question, therefore is this:
When you say "it will be pressured into regulation, eventually," what
do you mean? Are you implying that even the hardware wallets and
desktop wallets for bitcoin will be regulated to the point where they
cannot be used by individuals who actually care about being able to
circumvent financial censorship? If so, explain how that is the case.
I could see an argument where that might be the case to some degree
if you would mention it in the context of services like Chainalysis
and other companies that are in the process of setting up services for
corporation-states for "virtual currency compliance;" e.g.; if
activity can be scanned and if a state has a requirement you are
supposed to be registered with the state to use virtual currency at
some level, and if companies scan the blockchain and report this
information to states (as they now do), then as you say, the only
reasonable method of using virtual currencies would be one in which
location is masked and information about the nodes and history of
transactions can be hidden. However, this requires more privacy and
anonymity effort in bitcoin development, but I don't think it would
actually keep people from using hardware and desktop wallets (although
I do think eventually people will, as they are beginning to now, be
gradually censored more and more from utilizing web wallets for
activities that they desire).
It seems to me that the existence of various tools and conditions
(external to the whole issue of legal constraints) are also very
important. For example, various companies have recently made public
announcements that they will leave (or not operate in) New York due to
Bitlicense - Kraken, Shapeshift.io, poloniex, and others. It's
understandable given the extreme nature of NY's approach (I personally
oppose any regulation of virtual currencies). But technically, they
didn't have to cease operating, did they? This was a failure in their
business model. They made a big statement about how evil NY was and
fled the scene, perhaps never to return to serve NY. (Note, I don't
live in NY, so I'm not personally being left out in the cold when
Kraken etc. leave, for the record.) As said, this was a failure in
Kraken, poloniex's, shapeshift's, etc., business model. Why? Because
here we are talking about web-based services. A distributed,
decentralized, peer-to-peer model in which the user has a piece of
software on their computer (think openbazaar or bitsquare) is far and
away better than services which are web based. Why? Because systems
which are set up such as (openbazaar, bitsquare) don't have to worry
about the constraints of state boundaries or shifting legal things,
nor do the people who made the software end up holding keys on behalf
of the users. If Kraken, poloniex, etc., had bothered to develop
contingency software (similar to what is being worked on with
https://bitsquare.io/ for example) for users who might be affected in
jurisdictions where corporation-states Just Don't Get It (read... NY,
and possibly CA, as examples) then maybe they wouldn't have to worry
about it at all. It just would be a matter of users installing a
piece of software from their website, discontinuing the web-based
exchange for that state, and directing users for highly regulated
states to a download page for the decentralized exchange software.
Not that hard really - but something we haven't seen done yet by the
big exchanges.
I have another question for you below...
>
> To the second point, it has been previously pointed out that large
> miners stand to gain from larger blocks, for the same basic
> underlying reasons as selfish mining. The incentive is to increase
> blocks, and miners are able to do so at will and without cost. I
> would not be so certain that we wouldn't see large blocks sooner
> than that.
>
>
> We should get the inverted bloom filters stuff (or competing
> products) working at least on a one-to-one basis so we can solve
> the propagation time problem. There frankly is a huge amount of
> optimization that can be done in that area, we don't even use
> locality (pingtime) to optimize distribution.
>> From my experience you can expect a 2-magnitude speedup in that
> same 6 month period by focusing some research there.
>
>
> This is basically already deployed thanks to Matt's relay network.
> Further improvements are not going to have dramatic effects.
>
>
> Remember 8Gb/block still doesn't support VISA/Mastercard.
>
>
> No, it doesn't. And 8GB/block is ludicrously large -- it would
> absolutely, without any doubt destroy the very nature of Bitcoin,
> turning it into a fundamentally uninteresting reincarnation of the
> existing financial system.
Why do you say 8GB / block would destroy the very nature of Bitcoin?
I don't see that it would destroy bitcoin... but also, what would
cause 8GB to happen very soon? As I understood it, any process would
phase increases. Explain how that would destroy the very nature of
Bitcoin?
Blocksize is extremely likely to get bigger (I'm supposing here that
some version of Garzik's BIP 100 or something very close to it is what
will likely be adopted and that the blocksize would be voted on
something like this:
https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/37943/bip-100-what-votes-are
- -possible
Am I wrong? Please let me know if I'm dumb.
I am aware consensus isn't precisely there yet, but I'm just curious.
> And still be unable to compete with VISA/Mastercard.
>
> So why then the pressure to go down a route that WILL lead to
> failure by your own metrics?
>
> I humbly suggest that maybe we should play the strengths of
> Bitcoin instead -- it's trustlessness via policy neutrality.
>
> Either that, or go work on Stellar. Because that's where it's
> headed otherwise.
>
>
> _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing
> list bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
- --
http://abis.io ~
"a protocol concept to enable decentralization
and expansion of a giving economy, and a new social good"
https://keybase.io/odinn
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJVypDkAAoJEGxwq/inSG8CSAEH/00rWd1wzGU3vhXqzVCzPcHx
GnMpR3iiSYpjm1Wt1tHc1SsJnhcVL93iNuOpQMTU7jXhj9qEYu58uoVz+XnfeiFY
i4B4awt3fuR33+D5Y+IKAm3KLd1HYpcSq7N2LSSJli2r8zvum+rcm5CXppR8qxJM
nmjlS/Tp6FwKhBzqOeBGK6vWnigs1KJgllO4AzNKPSXwFPhQKZGMbH1cFx5qKxp9
5UmU4bxZNKmOtjvfFyptR1lY+JYqaoQeOkdnlOYWAaClSiH1y8DnzJtpVSImw3X5
ZYI5GUp1HgE4RrxK8cykPn5j90elHSWe+GaREjMcidnyJYvtlPapnEpEnda5iBk=
=pxSx
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
odinn [ARCHIVE] /
npub1xv…5j2ga
2023-06-07 15:46:09
in reply to nevent1q…sk7n
Author Public Key
npub1xv3g4rkhj7eyape0cqjhc9g4ljdu5axqkgcdewma854a8r7e0mtsl5j2gaPublished at
2023-06-07 15:46:09Event JSON
{
"id": "fa6bdd660866e5ea78e586e5c13fc71c1a5bbda7d627901f7c2c07238e9b323a",
"pubkey": "33228a8ed797b24e872fc0257c1515fc9bca74c0b230dcbb7d3d2bd38fd97ed7",
"created_at": 1686152769,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"cf6411bfecea99b0c4ea78e985838b5e3fd62429f4968960ffd260356286401f",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"1875e287d3cea39be4d98381c3220eee45c50bdb452b181c6a0a07b9f18798c5",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"6f226bd1c86c22aed12ec82cd2dab4b5e2f77fd662ac4e1f881170a12da87bd6"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-08-11\n📝 Original message:-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----\nHash: SHA1\n\nHello, I thought these were good points, but I have a couple questions..\n.\n\nOn 08/11/2015 12:08 AM, Mark Friedenbach via bitcoin-dev wrote:\n\u003e On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 11:31 PM, Thomas Zander via bitcoin-dev \n\u003e \u003cbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org \n\u003e \u003cmailto:bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e\u003e wrote:\n\u003e \n\u003e On Monday 10. August 2015 23.03.39 \u003ctel:2015%2023.03.39\u003e Mark \n\u003e Friedenbach wrote:\n\u003e\u003e This is where things diverge. It's fine to pick a new limit or\n\u003e\u003e growth trajectory. But defend it with data and reasoned\n\u003e\u003e analysis.\n\u003e \n\u003e We currently serve about 0,007% of the world population sending \n\u003e maybe one transaction a month. This can only go up.\n\u003e \n\u003e There are about 20 currencies in the world that are unstable and \n\u003e showing early signs of hyperinflation. If even small percentage of\n\u003e these people cash-out and get Bitcoins for their savings you'd have\n\u003e the amount of people using Bitcoin as savings go from maybe half a\n\u003e million to 10 million in the space of a couple of months. Why so\n\u003e fast? Because all the world currencies are linked. Practically all\n\u003e currencies follow the USD, and while that one may stay robust and\n\u003e standing, the linkage has been shown in the past to cause \n\u003e chain-effects.\n\u003e \n\u003e It is impossible to predict how much uptake Bitcoin will take, but \n\u003e we have seen big rises in price as Cyprus had a bailin and then\n\u003e when Greece first showed bad signs again. Lets do our due diligence\n\u003e and agree that in the current world economy there are sure signs\n\u003e that people are considering Bitcoin on a big scale.\n\u003e \n\u003e Bigger amount of people holding Bitcoin savings won't make the \n\u003e transaction rate go up very much, but if you have feet on the\n\u003e ground you already see that people go back to barter in countries\n\u003e like Poland, Ireland, Greece etc. And Bitcoin will be an\n\u003e alternative to good to ignore. Then transaction rates will go up.\n\u003e Dramatically.\n\u003e \n\u003e If you are asking for numbers, that is a bit tricky. Again; we are\n\u003e at 0,007%... Thats like a f-ing rounding error in the world\n\u003e economy. You can't reason from that. Its like using a float to do\n\u003e calculations that you should have done in a double and getting\n\u003e weird output.\n\u003e \n\u003e Bottom line is that a maximum size of 8Mb blocks is not that odd. \n\u003e Because a 20 times increase is very common in a \"company\" that is\n\u003e about 6 years old. For instance Android was about that age when it\n\u003e started to get shipped by non- Google companies. There the increase\n\u003e was substantially bigger and the company backing it was definitely\n\u003e able to change direction faster than the Bitcoin oiltanker can\n\u003e change direction.\n\u003e \n\u003e ...\n\u003e \n\u003e Another metric to remember; if you follow hackernews (well, the \n\u003e incubator more than the linked articles) you'd be exposed to the\n\u003e thinking of these startups. Their only criteria is growth. and this\n\u003e is rather substantial growth. Like 150% per month. Naturally, most\n\u003e of these build on top of html or other existing technologies. But\n\u003e the point is that exponential growth is expected in any startup.\n\u003e They typically have a much much more agressive timeline, though.\n\u003e Every month instead of every year. Having exponential growth in the\n\u003e blockchain is really not odd and even if we have LN or sidechains\n\u003e or the next changetip, this space will be used. And we will still\n\u003e have scarcity.\n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e I'm sorry, I really don't want to sound like a jerk, but not a\n\u003e single word of that mattered. Yes we all want Bitcoin to scale such\n\u003e that every person in the world can use it without difficulty.\n\u003e However if that were all that we cared about then I would be remiss\n\u003e if I did not point out that there are plenty of better, faster, and\n\u003e cheaper solutions to finding global consensus over a payment ledger\n\u003e than Bitcoin. Architectures which are algorithmically superior in\n\u003e their scaling properties. Indeed they are already implemented and\n\u003e you can use them today:\n\u003e \n\u003e https://www.stellar.org/ http://opentransactions.org/\n\u003e \n\u003e So why do I work on Bitcoin, and why do I care about the outcome of\n\u003e this debate? Because Bitcoin offers one thing, and one thing only\n\u003e which alternative architectures fundamentally lack: policy\n\u003e neutrality. It can't be censored, it can't be shut down, and the\n\u003e rules cannot change from underneath you. *That* is what Bitcoin\n\u003e offers that can't be replicated at higher scale with a SQL database\n\u003e and an audit log.\n\u003e \n\u003e It follows then, that if we make a decision now which destroys\n\u003e that property, which makes it possible to censor bitcoin, to deny\n\u003e service, or to pressure miners into changing rules contrary to user\n\u003e interests, then Bitcoin is no longer interesting. We might as well\n\u003e get rid of mining at that point and make Bitcoin look like Stellar\n\u003e or Open-Transactions because at least then we'd scale even better\n\u003e and not be pumping millions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere from\n\u003e running all those ASICs.\n\u003e \n\u003e On the other side, 3Tb harddrives are sold, which take 8Mb blocks \n\u003e without problems.\n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e Straw man, storage is not an issue.\n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e You can buy broadband in every relevant country that easily\n\u003e supports the bandwidth we need. (remember we won't jump to 8Mb in a\n\u003e day, it will likely take at least 6 months).\n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e Neither one of those assertions is clear. Keep in mind the goal is\n\u003e to have Bitcoin survive active censorship. Presumably that means\n\u003e being able to run a node even in the face of a hostile ISP or\n\u003e government. Furthermore, it means being location independent and\n\u003e being able to move around. In many places the higher the bandwidth\n\u003e requirements the fewer the number of ISPs that are available to\n\u003e service you, and the more visible you are.\n\u003e \n\u003e It may also be necessary to be able to run over Tor. And not just \n\u003e today's Tor which is developed, serviced, and supported by the US \n\u003e government, but a Tor or I2P that future governments have turned\n\u003e hostile towards and actively censor or repress. Or existing\n\u003e authoritative governments, for that matter. How much bandwidth\n\u003e would be available through those connections?\n\u003e \n\u003e It may hopefully never be necessary to operate under such\n\u003e constraints, except by freedom seeking individuals within existing\n\u003e totalitarian regimes. However the credible threat of doing so may\n\u003e be what keeps Bitcoin from being repressed in the first place. Lose\n\u003e the capability to go underground, and it will be pressured into\n\u003e regulation, eventually.\n\nBitcoin (as well as the internet, and the world wide web) is already\nregulated around the world.\nThere used to be a map that documented this fairly well, called\nbitlegal (bitlegal.net) but the site is now parked or offline. There\nis an alternative visual picture of the subject at:\nhttp://is.gd/vFgYrf\nThe upshot of that is that web wallets (which are popularized due to\nconvenience) cannot be considered to provide users with control over\ntheir money - extended discussion on this here in the bitcoin.org\nrepository:\nhttps://github.com/bitcoin-dot-org/bitcoin.org/issues/996\n\nMy question, therefore is this:\nWhen you say \"it will be pressured into regulation, eventually,\" what\ndo you mean? Are you implying that even the hardware wallets and\ndesktop wallets for bitcoin will be regulated to the point where they\ncannot be used by individuals who actually care about being able to\ncircumvent financial censorship? If so, explain how that is the case.\n\n I could see an argument where that might be the case to some degree\nif you would mention it in the context of services like Chainalysis\nand other companies that are in the process of setting up services for\ncorporation-states for \"virtual currency compliance;\" e.g.; if\nactivity can be scanned and if a state has a requirement you are\nsupposed to be registered with the state to use virtual currency at\nsome level, and if companies scan the blockchain and report this\ninformation to states (as they now do), then as you say, the only\nreasonable method of using virtual currencies would be one in which\nlocation is masked and information about the nodes and history of\ntransactions can be hidden. However, this requires more privacy and\nanonymity effort in bitcoin development, but I don't think it would\nactually keep people from using hardware and desktop wallets (although\nI do think eventually people will, as they are beginning to now, be\ngradually censored more and more from utilizing web wallets for\nactivities that they desire).\n\nIt seems to me that the existence of various tools and conditions\n(external to the whole issue of legal constraints) are also very\nimportant. For example, various companies have recently made public\nannouncements that they will leave (or not operate in) New York due to\nBitlicense - Kraken, Shapeshift.io, poloniex, and others. It's\nunderstandable given the extreme nature of NY's approach (I personally\noppose any regulation of virtual currencies). But technically, they\ndidn't have to cease operating, did they? This was a failure in their\nbusiness model. They made a big statement about how evil NY was and\nfled the scene, perhaps never to return to serve NY. (Note, I don't\nlive in NY, so I'm not personally being left out in the cold when\nKraken etc. leave, for the record.) As said, this was a failure in\nKraken, poloniex's, shapeshift's, etc., business model. Why? Because\nhere we are talking about web-based services. A distributed,\ndecentralized, peer-to-peer model in which the user has a piece of\nsoftware on their computer (think openbazaar or bitsquare) is far and\naway better than services which are web based. Why? Because systems\nwhich are set up such as (openbazaar, bitsquare) don't have to worry\nabout the constraints of state boundaries or shifting legal things,\nnor do the people who made the software end up holding keys on behalf\nof the users. If Kraken, poloniex, etc., had bothered to develop\ncontingency software (similar to what is being worked on with\nhttps://bitsquare.io/ for example) for users who might be affected in\njurisdictions where corporation-states Just Don't Get It (read... NY,\nand possibly CA, as examples) then maybe they wouldn't have to worry\nabout it at all. It just would be a matter of users installing a\npiece of software from their website, discontinuing the web-based\nexchange for that state, and directing users for highly regulated\nstates to a download page for the decentralized exchange software.\nNot that hard really - but something we haven't seen done yet by the\nbig exchanges.\n\nI have another question for you below...\n\n\u003e \n\u003e To the second point, it has been previously pointed out that large \n\u003e miners stand to gain from larger blocks, for the same basic\n\u003e underlying reasons as selfish mining. The incentive is to increase\n\u003e blocks, and miners are able to do so at will and without cost. I\n\u003e would not be so certain that we wouldn't see large blocks sooner\n\u003e than that.\n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e We should get the inverted bloom filters stuff (or competing \n\u003e products) working at least on a one-to-one basis so we can solve\n\u003e the propagation time problem. There frankly is a huge amount of\n\u003e optimization that can be done in that area, we don't even use\n\u003e locality (pingtime) to optimize distribution.\n\u003e\u003e From my experience you can expect a 2-magnitude speedup in that\n\u003e same 6 month period by focusing some research there.\n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e This is basically already deployed thanks to Matt's relay network. \n\u003e Further improvements are not going to have dramatic effects.\n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e Remember 8Gb/block still doesn't support VISA/Mastercard.\n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e No, it doesn't. And 8GB/block is ludicrously large -- it would \n\u003e absolutely, without any doubt destroy the very nature of Bitcoin, \n\u003e turning it into a fundamentally uninteresting reincarnation of the \n\u003e existing financial system.\n\nWhy do you say 8GB / block would destroy the very nature of Bitcoin?\nI don't see that it would destroy bitcoin... but also, what would\ncause 8GB to happen very soon? As I understood it, any process would\nphase increases. Explain how that would destroy the very nature of\nBitcoin?\n\nBlocksize is extremely likely to get bigger (I'm supposing here that\nsome version of Garzik's BIP 100 or something very close to it is what\nwill likely be adopted and that the blocksize would be voted on\nsomething like this:\nhttps://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/37943/bip-100-what-votes-are\n- -possible\n\nAm I wrong? Please let me know if I'm dumb.\n\nI am aware consensus isn't precisely there yet, but I'm just curious.\n\n\n\u003e And still be unable to compete with VISA/Mastercard.\n\u003e \n\u003e So why then the pressure to go down a route that WILL lead to\n\u003e failure by your own metrics?\n\u003e \n\u003e I humbly suggest that maybe we should play the strengths of\n\u003e Bitcoin instead -- it's trustlessness via policy neutrality.\n\u003e \n\u003e Either that, or go work on Stellar. Because that's where it's\n\u003e headed otherwise.\n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing\n\u003e list bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org \n\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\u003e \n\n- -- \nhttp://abis.io ~\n\"a protocol concept to enable decentralization\nand expansion of a giving economy, and a new social good\"\nhttps://keybase.io/odinn\n-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----\nVersion: GnuPG v1\n\niQEcBAEBAgAGBQJVypDkAAoJEGxwq/inSG8CSAEH/00rWd1wzGU3vhXqzVCzPcHx\nGnMpR3iiSYpjm1Wt1tHc1SsJnhcVL93iNuOpQMTU7jXhj9qEYu58uoVz+XnfeiFY\ni4B4awt3fuR33+D5Y+IKAm3KLd1HYpcSq7N2LSSJli2r8zvum+rcm5CXppR8qxJM\nnmjlS/Tp6FwKhBzqOeBGK6vWnigs1KJgllO4AzNKPSXwFPhQKZGMbH1cFx5qKxp9\n5UmU4bxZNKmOtjvfFyptR1lY+JYqaoQeOkdnlOYWAaClSiH1y8DnzJtpVSImw3X5\nZYI5GUp1HgE4RrxK8cykPn5j90elHSWe+GaREjMcidnyJYvtlPapnEpEnda5iBk=\n=pxSx\n-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----",
"sig": "5fd6c0763d59638a4a3cb801e3e9f52b20adb90469e0701216abf8ea812cc652ce19e3b0bae44dc23e975be8b9fd7e67e0553070e6ccfe84aea2f8ecd2a0633e"
}