📅 Original date posted:2015-08-11
📝 Original message:Hi Michael,
> One of the key characteristics toward that is Bitcoin being
> inexpensive to transact.
What you seem to be missing is *why* bitcoin is better money. Have you
considered why is it comparatively inexpensive to transact in a medium
that is based on such a highly inefficient technology?
You might want to consider that these two considerations are not
independent. The reduced cost of transacting (and carrying) Bitcoin is a
direct consequence of its trustless nature. Any compromise in that
nature will eliminate that advantage, and therefore Bitcoin.
Bitcoin is designed to solve only one problem that other systems do not.
To accomplish this it makes significant compromises in other areas. The
benefit of this solution is that it cannot be effectively controlled by
the state. As a result, all of the associated overhead is eliminated.
Hence the net cost benefit despite high technical costs.
So this is a case where you should be careful what you wish for.
e
On 08/11/2015 02:18 PM, Michael Naber via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> The only reason why Bitcoin has grown the way it has, and in fact the
> only reason why we're all even here on this mailing list talking about
> this, is because Bitcoin is growing, since it's "better money than other
> money". One of the key characteristics toward that is Bitcoin being
> inexpensive to transact. If that characteristic is no longer true, then
> Bitcoin isn't going to grow, and in fact Bitcoin itself will be replaced
> by better money that is less expensive to transfer.
>
> So the importance of this issue cannot be overstated -- it's compete or
> die for Bitcoin -- because people want to transact with global consensus
> at high volume, and because technology exists to service that want, then
> it's going to be met. This is basic rules of demand and supply. I don't
> necessarily disagree with your position on only wanting to support
> uncontroversial commits, but I think it's important to get consensus on
> the criticality of the block size issue: do you agree, disagree, or not
> take a side, and why?
Eric Voskuil [ARCHIVE] /
npub1sg…ppx3c
2023-06-07 15:45:58
in reply to nevent1q…en0j
Author Public Key
npub1sgs97fe0n9wehe6zw7drcxdz4cy9yt9pfqjv8gasz5jlk4zezc0quppx3cPublished at
2023-06-07 15:45:58Event JSON
{
"id": "974a589bd3cbe9f7804046f60cd11e689bfb6107cd48d105924ae4837ecfe035",
"pubkey": "82205f272f995d9be742779a3c19a2ae08522ca14824c3a3b01525fb5459161e",
"created_at": 1686152758,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"cf6411bfecea99b0c4ea78e985838b5e3fd62429f4968960ffd260356286401f",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"cb0a4fa07af96f51829da1f431d391ee5d0cfd04efe8a3c8751ad792521bb7b8",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"dc329a02c970aabf03b87185ef51c86afe4586fe3a148508af898af3fabc56a3"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-08-11\n📝 Original message:Hi Michael,\n\n\u003e One of the key characteristics toward that is Bitcoin being\n\u003e inexpensive to transact.\n\nWhat you seem to be missing is *why* bitcoin is better money. Have you\nconsidered why is it comparatively inexpensive to transact in a medium\nthat is based on such a highly inefficient technology?\n\nYou might want to consider that these two considerations are not\nindependent. The reduced cost of transacting (and carrying) Bitcoin is a\ndirect consequence of its trustless nature. Any compromise in that\nnature will eliminate that advantage, and therefore Bitcoin.\n\nBitcoin is designed to solve only one problem that other systems do not.\nTo accomplish this it makes significant compromises in other areas. The\nbenefit of this solution is that it cannot be effectively controlled by\nthe state. As a result, all of the associated overhead is eliminated.\nHence the net cost benefit despite high technical costs.\n\nSo this is a case where you should be careful what you wish for.\n\ne\n\nOn 08/11/2015 02:18 PM, Michael Naber via bitcoin-dev wrote:\n\u003e The only reason why Bitcoin has grown the way it has, and in fact the\n\u003e only reason why we're all even here on this mailing list talking about\n\u003e this, is because Bitcoin is growing, since it's \"better money than other\n\u003e money\". One of the key characteristics toward that is Bitcoin being\n\u003e inexpensive to transact. If that characteristic is no longer true, then\n\u003e Bitcoin isn't going to grow, and in fact Bitcoin itself will be replaced\n\u003e by better money that is less expensive to transfer.\n\u003e \n\u003e So the importance of this issue cannot be overstated -- it's compete or\n\u003e die for Bitcoin -- because people want to transact with global consensus\n\u003e at high volume, and because technology exists to service that want, then\n\u003e it's going to be met. This is basic rules of demand and supply. I don't\n\u003e necessarily disagree with your position on only wanting to support\n\u003e uncontroversial commits, but I think it's important to get consensus on\n\u003e the criticality of the block size issue: do you agree, disagree, or not\n\u003e take a side, and why?",
"sig": "4942f8d00c145c7c0f4e6687ae826d5117222d4f63e4fedd0c83daf989a3f670f787a9b82d71b9a089daa30b095259dda844a7aa4d736101a5a564b9e15f99b6"
}