📅 Original date posted:2015-05-12
📝 Original message:Thank you for your answer.
I agree that a lot of things will change, and I am not asking for a
prediction of technological developments; prediction is certainly
impossible. What I would like to have is some sort of reference scenario
for the future of Bitcoin. Something a bit like the Standard Model in
Physics. The reference scenario should not be a prediction of the
future, that's not the point. In fact, it will have to be updated
everytime technological evolutions or code changes render it obsolete.
However, the reference scenario should be a workable path through the
future, using today's technologies and today's knowlegde, and including
all planned code changes. It should be, as much as possible, amenable to
quantitative analysis. It could be used to justify controversial
decisions such as a hard fork.
Your proposal of a block size increase would be much stronger if it came
with such a scenario. It would show that you know where you are going.
Le 11/05/2015 19:29, Gavin Andresen a écrit :
> I think long-term the chain will not be secured purely by proof-of-work. I
> think when the Bitcoin network was tiny running solely on people's home
> computers proof-of-work was the right way to secure the chain, and the only
> fair way to both secure the chain and distribute the coins.
>
> See https://gist.github.com/gavinandresen/630d4a6c24ac6144482a for some
> half-baked thoughts along those lines. I don't think proof-of-work is the
> last word in distributed consensus (I also don't think any alternatives are
> anywhere near ready to deploy, but they might be in ten years).
>
> I also think it is premature to worry about what will happen in twenty or
> thirty years when the block subsidy is insignificant. A lot will happen in
> the next twenty years. I could spin a vision of what will secure the chain
> in twenty years, but I'd put a low probability on that vision actually
> turning out to be correct.
>
> That is why I keep saying Bitcoin is an experiment. But I also believe that
> the incentives are correct, and there are a lot of very motivated, smart,
> hard-working people who will make it work. When you're talking about trying
> to predict what will happen decades from now, I think that is the best you
> can (honestly) do.
>
Thomas Voegtlin [ARCHIVE] /
npub10f…7ej47
2023-06-07 15:34:45
in reply to nevent1q…evhq
Author Public Key
npub10f96gqrsu4qpygfgvuvzce47aavjvql703egfde0l2hua8dzpszs67ej47Published at
2023-06-07 15:34:45Event JSON
{
"id": "d65764949793f674e5383e9bb7bcb0166b5c91cbbe41a8cae2eb56e1b6c2c679",
"pubkey": "7a4ba40070e54012212867182c66beef592603fe7c7284b72ffaafce9da20c05",
"created_at": 1686152085,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"4fca8766cb3622944ad3338913b2eaab58533c317983b04a538d878303c3c989",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"120216fd0eda37047cf114f3d4705f097b05981290bf3c1709c0575f453aa6af",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"857f2f78dc1639e711f5ea703a9fc978e22ebd279abdea1861b7daa833512ee4"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-05-12\n📝 Original message:Thank you for your answer.\n\nI agree that a lot of things will change, and I am not asking for a\nprediction of technological developments; prediction is certainly\nimpossible. What I would like to have is some sort of reference scenario\nfor the future of Bitcoin. Something a bit like the Standard Model in\nPhysics. The reference scenario should not be a prediction of the\nfuture, that's not the point. In fact, it will have to be updated\neverytime technological evolutions or code changes render it obsolete.\n\nHowever, the reference scenario should be a workable path through the\nfuture, using today's technologies and today's knowlegde, and including\nall planned code changes. It should be, as much as possible, amenable to\nquantitative analysis. It could be used to justify controversial\ndecisions such as a hard fork.\n\nYour proposal of a block size increase would be much stronger if it came\nwith such a scenario. It would show that you know where you are going.\n\n\n\nLe 11/05/2015 19:29, Gavin Andresen a écrit :\n\u003e I think long-term the chain will not be secured purely by proof-of-work. I\n\u003e think when the Bitcoin network was tiny running solely on people's home\n\u003e computers proof-of-work was the right way to secure the chain, and the only\n\u003e fair way to both secure the chain and distribute the coins.\n\u003e \n\u003e See https://gist.github.com/gavinandresen/630d4a6c24ac6144482a for some\n\u003e half-baked thoughts along those lines. I don't think proof-of-work is the\n\u003e last word in distributed consensus (I also don't think any alternatives are\n\u003e anywhere near ready to deploy, but they might be in ten years).\n\u003e \n\u003e I also think it is premature to worry about what will happen in twenty or\n\u003e thirty years when the block subsidy is insignificant. A lot will happen in\n\u003e the next twenty years. I could spin a vision of what will secure the chain\n\u003e in twenty years, but I'd put a low probability on that vision actually\n\u003e turning out to be correct.\n\u003e \n\u003e That is why I keep saying Bitcoin is an experiment. But I also believe that\n\u003e the incentives are correct, and there are a lot of very motivated, smart,\n\u003e hard-working people who will make it work. When you're talking about trying\n\u003e to predict what will happen decades from now, I think that is the best you\n\u003e can (honestly) do.\n\u003e",
"sig": "85b71d9a37e01e3514ec0f5bce50de45143a23cce777c5ad936648a7cd62da151148dae3e93a4d4a62a4e01984f1079d94089aa8a7f739aa36f6d8d2fe2b2ead"
}