📅 Original date posted:2015-08-10
📝 Original message:On Monday 10. August 2015 16.34.55 Pieter Wuille via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 4:12 PM, Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen at gmail.com>
>
> wrote:
> > Executive summary: when networks get over-saturated, they become
> > unreliable. Unreliable is bad.
> >
> > Unreliable and expensive is extra bad, and that's where we're headed
> > without an increase to the max block size.
>
> I think I see your point of view. You see demand for on-chain transactions
> as a single number that grows with adoption. Once the transaction creation
> rate grows close to the capacity, transactions will become unreliable, and
> you consider this a bad thing.
Everyone in any industry will consider that a bad thing.
There is no doubt that on-chain transactions will grow, absolutely no doubt.
You can direct many people to off-chain systems, but that will not stop growth
of on-chain transactions. Bitcoin economy is absolutely tiny and there is a
huge amount of growth possible. It can only grow.
> And if you see Bitcoin as a payment system where guaranteed time to
> confirmation is a feature, I fully agree.
Naturally, that is a usecase. But not really one that enters my mind. It
certainly is not a requirement to have guaranteed time.
The situation is much simpler than that.
We have maybe 0,007% of the world population using Bitcoin once a month. (half
a million people). And I'm being very optimistic with that number...
This should give you an idea of how much growth is possible.
There is no doubt at all that the 1Mb blocks will get full, continuously, if
we get to a higher rate of usage. Even with the vast majority of users using
Bitcoin off-chain.
As such its not about a guaranteed time-to confirmation. Its about a
confirmation before I die.
> If you want transactions to be cheap, it will also be cheap to make them
> unreliable.
Its not about transactions being cheap. The fee market is completely
irrelevant to the block size. If you think otherwise you are delusional.
The reason it is irrelevant is because when the system starts consistently
dropping transactions when user count goes up, and when that happens the
Bitcoin network looses value because people don't put value in something that
is unreliable.
This is simple economy 101.
Look at history; so many great companies made great products that had more
features, but didn't make it because their competition might have been slower
to market, but it was actually reliable.
--
Thomas Zander
Thomas Zander [ARCHIVE] /
npub1du…vyg93
2023-06-07 17:33:57
in reply to nevent1q…jglf
Author Public Key
npub1du3xh5wgds32a5fweqkd9k45kh30wl7kv2kyu8ugz9c2ztdg00tqqvyg93Published at
2023-06-07 17:33:57Event JSON
{
"id": "33e4e3636ca15fbcddca683c9e1d3875dd0f9324923a61cd64822b146faa9bbc",
"pubkey": "6f226bd1c86c22aed12ec82cd2dab4b5e2f77fd662ac4e1f881170a12da87bd6",
"created_at": 1686159237,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"0be39125a55b736c93365735a614c6c3adbad06ad3effa6f21e6b42bef7ccb51",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"a4a0622beda45c8937cfbd74169b062062cf093e50d53fd3354fce31ffe6f040",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"5cb21bf5d7f25a9d46879713cbd32433bbc10e40ef813a3c28fe7355f49854d6"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-08-10\n📝 Original message:On Monday 10. August 2015 16.34.55 Pieter Wuille via bitcoin-dev wrote:\n\u003e On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 4:12 PM, Gavin Andresen \u003cgavinandresen at gmail.com\u003e\n\u003e \n\u003e wrote:\n\u003e \u003e Executive summary: when networks get over-saturated, they become\n\u003e \u003e unreliable. Unreliable is bad.\n\u003e \u003e \n\u003e \u003e Unreliable and expensive is extra bad, and that's where we're headed\n\u003e \u003e without an increase to the max block size.\n\u003e \n\u003e I think I see your point of view. You see demand for on-chain transactions\n\u003e as a single number that grows with adoption. Once the transaction creation\n\u003e rate grows close to the capacity, transactions will become unreliable, and\n\u003e you consider this a bad thing.\n\nEveryone in any industry will consider that a bad thing.\n\nThere is no doubt that on-chain transactions will grow, absolutely no doubt.\nYou can direct many people to off-chain systems, but that will not stop growth \nof on-chain transactions. Bitcoin economy is absolutely tiny and there is a \nhuge amount of growth possible. It can only grow.\n\n\n\u003e And if you see Bitcoin as a payment system where guaranteed time to\n\u003e confirmation is a feature, I fully agree.\n\nNaturally, that is a usecase. But not really one that enters my mind. It \ncertainly is not a requirement to have guaranteed time.\n\nThe situation is much simpler than that.\nWe have maybe 0,007% of the world population using Bitcoin once a month. (half \na million people). And I'm being very optimistic with that number...\nThis should give you an idea of how much growth is possible.\n\nThere is no doubt at all that the 1Mb blocks will get full, continuously, if \nwe get to a higher rate of usage. Even with the vast majority of users using \nBitcoin off-chain.\n\nAs such its not about a guaranteed time-to confirmation. Its about a \nconfirmation before I die.\n\n\u003e If you want transactions to be cheap, it will also be cheap to make them\n\u003e unreliable.\n\nIts not about transactions being cheap. The fee market is completely \nirrelevant to the block size. If you think otherwise you are delusional.\nThe reason it is irrelevant is because when the system starts consistently \ndropping transactions when user count goes up, and when that happens the \nBitcoin network looses value because people don't put value in something that \nis unreliable.\n\nThis is simple economy 101.\nLook at history; so many great companies made great products that had more \nfeatures, but didn't make it because their competition might have been slower \nto market, but it was actually reliable.\n-- \nThomas Zander",
"sig": "c61ab5439ce6ea3986b40cf2859fa850b26c021df4861332c07117ba7eee9b2760dba67857a88a874ef637e3a0773c83215bc198ea2ae74499a69118745aa585"
}