📅 Original date posted:2015-08-11
📝 Original message:Jorge, As long as Bitcoin remains the best global consensus network -- and
part of being best means being reasonably priced -- then no I don't think
people will be pushed into altcoins. Better money ultimately displaces
worse money, so I don't see a driving force for people to move to other
altcoins as long as Bitcoin remains competitive.
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.
On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 2:27 PM, Jorge Timón <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/c8097503/attachment.html>;
Michael Naber [ARCHIVE] /
npub13r…cy5l4
2023-06-07 15:45:51
in reply to nevent1q…j3ea
Author Public Key
npub13rv3raner7hu6npy7vxxvdswdapae65pnw8jjs4c80wtp2nmg4xq9cy5l4Published at
2023-06-07 15:45:51Event JSON
{
"id": "0be3f86bfa21e0af03ca7b60fc245181a0dbcd0e577d0c9b939593089e0eea2d",
"pubkey": "88d911f6791fafcd4c24f30c66360e6f43dcea819b8f2942b83bdcb0aa7b454c",
"created_at": 1686152751,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"cf6411bfecea99b0c4ea78e985838b5e3fd62429f4968960ffd260356286401f",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"e1a3f4de892ae8352395e9fab19079d7b3069b543aa293751025918a47b83af7",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"498a711971f8a0194289aee037a4c481a99e731b5151724064973cc0e0b27c84"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-08-11\n📝 Original message:Jorge, As long as Bitcoin remains the best global consensus network -- and\npart of being best means being reasonably priced -- then no I don't think\npeople will be pushed into altcoins. Better money ultimately displaces\nworse money, so I don't see a driving force for people to move to other\naltcoins as long as Bitcoin remains competitive.\n\nHitting 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\n\nOn Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 2:27 PM, Jorge Timón \u003cjtimon at jtimon.cc\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e\n\u003e On Aug 11, 2015 8:46 PM, \"Michael Naber\" \u003cmickeybob at gmail.com\u003e wrote:\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e Hi Jorge: Many people would like to participate in a global consensus\n\u003e network -- which is a network where all the participating nodes are aware\n\u003e of and agree upon every transaction. Constraining Bitcoin capacity below\n\u003e the limits of technology will only push users seeking to participate in a\n\u003e global consensus network to other solutions which have adequate capacity,\n\u003e such as BitcoinXT or others. Note that lightning / hub and spoke do not\n\u003e meet requirements for users wishing to participate in global consensus,\n\u003e because they are not global consensus networks, since all participating\n\u003e nodes are not aware of all transactions.\n\u003e\n\u003e Even if you are right, first fees will raise and that will be what pushes\n\u003e people to other altcoins, no?\n\u003e Can we agree that the first step in any potentially bad situation is\n\u003e hitting the limit and then fees rising as a consequence?\n\u003e\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150811/c8097503/attachment.html\u003e",
"sig": "b96bfb788e07dd8ad95b881ffc8756124eb57173f0946fee2284c3ef9aa67e920254edc24840fc9973e9a5c366b4a8bbbc06ec7ea70ae2e4e45ff973906ab3b7"
}