馃搮 Original date posted:2015-08-11
馃摑 Original message:On Aug 11, 2015 9:37 PM, "Michael Naber" <mickeybob at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hitting the limit in and of itself is not necessarily a bad thing. The
question at hand is whether we should constrain that limit below what
technology is capable of delivering. I'm arguing that not only we should
not, but that we could not even if we wanted to, since competition will
deliver capacity for global consensus whether it's in Bitcoin or in some
other product / fork.
You didn't answer the 2 questions...
Anyway, if we don't care about centralization at all, we can just remove
the limit: that's what "technology can provide".
Maybe in that case it is developers who move to a decentralized
competitor...
> On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 2:27 PM, Jorge Tim贸n <jtimon at jtimon.cc> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Aug 11, 2015 8:46 PM, "Michael Naber" <mickeybob at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi Jorge: Many people would like to participate in a global consensus
network -- which is a network where all the participating nodes are aware
of and agree upon every transaction. Constraining Bitcoin capacity below
the limits of technology will only push users seeking to participate in a
global consensus network to other solutions which have adequate capacity,
such as BitcoinXT or others. Note that lightning / hub and spoke do not
meet requirements for users wishing to participate in global consensus,
because they are not global consensus networks, since all participating
nodes are not aware of all transactions.
>>
>> Even if you are right, first fees will raise and that will be what
pushes people to other altcoins, no?
>> Can we agree that the first step in any potentially bad situation is
hitting the limit and then fees rising as a consequence?
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150811/59cd09a5/attachment-0001.html>;
Jorge Tim贸n [ARCHIVE] /
npub1fx鈥l2d8
2023-06-07 17:33:54
in reply to nevent1q鈥rqz
Author Public Key
npub1fx98zxt3lzspjs5f4msr0fxysx5euucm29ghysryju7vpc9j0jzqtcl2d8Published at
2023-06-07 17:33:54Event JSON
{
"id": "9b780a2ca2e207df95c8b56401b91c1a37914d7238bf99eb90c1172bbae609ad",
"pubkey": "498a711971f8a0194289aee037a4c481a99e731b5151724064973cc0e0b27c84",
"created_at": 1686159234,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"0be39125a55b736c93365735a614c6c3adbad06ad3effa6f21e6b42bef7ccb51",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"37755af5ee1425d409fa10e2f3168a931ba43079f1b6e73fd3fe70cc3fb59115",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"6f226bd1c86c22aed12ec82cd2dab4b5e2f77fd662ac4e1f881170a12da87bd6"
]
],
"content": "馃搮 Original date posted:2015-08-11\n馃摑 Original message:On Aug 11, 2015 9:37 PM, \"Michael Naber\" \u003cmickeybob at gmail.com\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e Hitting the limit in and of itself is not necessarily a bad thing. The\nquestion at hand is whether we should constrain that limit below what\ntechnology is capable of delivering. I'm arguing that not only we should\nnot, but that we could not even if we wanted to, since competition will\ndeliver capacity for global consensus whether it's in Bitcoin or in some\nother product / fork.\n\nYou didn't answer the 2 questions...\nAnyway, if we don't care about centralization at all, we can just remove\nthe limit: that's what \"technology can provide\".\nMaybe in that case it is developers who move to a decentralized\ncompetitor...\n\n\u003e On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 2:27 PM, Jorge Tim贸n \u003cjtimon at jtimon.cc\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e On Aug 11, 2015 8:46 PM, \"Michael Naber\" \u003cmickeybob at gmail.com\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\u003e \u003e\n\u003e\u003e \u003e Hi Jorge: Many people would like to participate in a global consensus\nnetwork -- which is a network where all the participating nodes are aware\nof and agree upon every transaction. Constraining Bitcoin capacity below\nthe limits of technology will only push users seeking to participate in a\nglobal consensus network to other solutions which have adequate capacity,\nsuch as BitcoinXT or others. Note that lightning / hub and spoke do not\nmeet requirements for users wishing to participate in global consensus,\nbecause they are not global consensus networks, since all participating\nnodes are not aware of all transactions.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e Even if you are right, first fees will raise and that will be what\npushes people to other altcoins, no?\n\u003e\u003e Can we agree that the first step in any potentially bad situation is\nhitting the limit and then fees rising as a consequence?\n\u003e\n\u003e\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150811/59cd09a5/attachment-0001.html\u003e",
"sig": "ac4302f597809c2828763b3a015cfee848b36180fa0be7277e52675b675f5539bce296118ea26ca4dc54e9a8186817e3953810ff5e7dc4ccd1bba9f1050410ff"
}