📅 Original date posted:2015-05-13
📝 Original message:> by people and businesses deciding to not use on-chain settlement.
I completely agree. Increasing fees will cause people voluntary economize
on blockspace by finding alternatives, i.e. not bitcoin. A fee however is a
known, upfront cost... unpredictable transaction failure in most cases will
be a far higher, unacceptable cost to the user than the actual fee. The
higher the costs of using the system, the lower the adoption as a
store-of-value. The lower the adoption as store-of-value, the lower the
price, and the lower the value of bitcoin to the world.
> That only measures miner adoption, which is the least relevant.
I concede the point. Perhaps a flag date based on previous observation of
network upgrade rates with a conservative additional margin in addition to
supermajority of mining power.
Aaron Voisine
co-founder and CEO
breadwallet.com
On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 6:19 PM, Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille at gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 6:13 PM, Aaron Voisine <voisine at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Conservative is a relative term. Dropping transactions in a way that is
>> unpredictable to the sender sounds incredibly drastic to me. I'm suggesting
>> increasing the blocksize, drastic as it is, is the more conservative choice.
>>
>
> Transactions are already being dropped, in a more indirect way: by people
> and businesses deciding to not use on-chain settlement. That is very sad,
> but it's completely inevitable that there is space for some use cases and
> not for others (at whatever block size). It's only a "things don't fit
> anymore" when you see on-chain transactions as the only means for doing
> payments, and that is already not the case. Increasing the block size
> allows for more utility on-chain, but it does not fundamentally add more
> use cases - only more growth space for people already invested in being
> able to do things on-chain while externalizing the costs to others.
>
>
>> I would recommend that the fork take effect when some specific large
>> supermajority of the pervious 1000 blocks indicate they have upgraded, as a
>> safer alternative to a simple flag date, but I'm sure I wouldn't have to
>> point out that option to people here.
>>
>
> That only measures miner adoption, which is the least relevant. The
> question is whether people using full nodes will upgrade. If they do, then
> miners are forced to upgrade too, or become irrelevant. If they don't, the
> upgrade is risky with or without miner adoption.
>
> --
> Pieter
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150513/0268ac4b/attachment.html>;
Aaron Voisine [ARCHIVE] /
npub18g…knkzl
2023-06-07 15:34:47
in reply to nevent1q…rnxj
Author Public Key
npub18gjvug29c4yg46lmplq38e75gg6wn5mn8taytckcsr4jt8p74h3s5knkzlPublished at
2023-06-07 15:34:47Event JSON
{
"id": "c2bd9bd901f4380515b23c00d452342c54789539e42226f5e0f3b8675ff8fa40",
"pubkey": "3a24ce2145c5488aebfb0fc113e7d44234e9d3733afa45e2d880eb259c3eade3",
"created_at": 1686152087,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"4fca8766cb3622944ad3338913b2eaab58533c317983b04a538d878303c3c989",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"ea5a58ea75a6f3d5084c3e01894ee9de604e1fcdc37fb0214667f974f34a7261",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"5cb21bf5d7f25a9d46879713cbd32433bbc10e40ef813a3c28fe7355f49854d6"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-05-13\n📝 Original message:\u003e by people and businesses deciding to not use on-chain settlement.\n\nI completely agree. Increasing fees will cause people voluntary economize\non blockspace by finding alternatives, i.e. not bitcoin. A fee however is a\nknown, upfront cost... unpredictable transaction failure in most cases will\nbe a far higher, unacceptable cost to the user than the actual fee. The\nhigher the costs of using the system, the lower the adoption as a\nstore-of-value. The lower the adoption as store-of-value, the lower the\nprice, and the lower the value of bitcoin to the world.\n\n\u003e That only measures miner adoption, which is the least relevant.\n\nI concede the point. Perhaps a flag date based on previous observation of\nnetwork upgrade rates with a conservative additional margin in addition to\nsupermajority of mining power.\n\n\nAaron Voisine\nco-founder and CEO\nbreadwallet.com\n\nOn Wed, May 13, 2015 at 6:19 PM, Pieter Wuille \u003cpieter.wuille at gmail.com\u003e\nwrote:\n\n\u003e On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 6:13 PM, Aaron Voisine \u003cvoisine at gmail.com\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\n\u003e\u003e Conservative is a relative term. Dropping transactions in a way that is\n\u003e\u003e unpredictable to the sender sounds incredibly drastic to me. I'm suggesting\n\u003e\u003e increasing the blocksize, drastic as it is, is the more conservative choice.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e Transactions are already being dropped, in a more indirect way: by people\n\u003e and businesses deciding to not use on-chain settlement. That is very sad,\n\u003e but it's completely inevitable that there is space for some use cases and\n\u003e not for others (at whatever block size). It's only a \"things don't fit\n\u003e anymore\" when you see on-chain transactions as the only means for doing\n\u003e payments, and that is already not the case. Increasing the block size\n\u003e allows for more utility on-chain, but it does not fundamentally add more\n\u003e use cases - only more growth space for people already invested in being\n\u003e able to do things on-chain while externalizing the costs to others.\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e\u003e I would recommend that the fork take effect when some specific large\n\u003e\u003e supermajority of the pervious 1000 blocks indicate they have upgraded, as a\n\u003e\u003e safer alternative to a simple flag date, but I'm sure I wouldn't have to\n\u003e\u003e point out that option to people here.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e That only measures miner adoption, which is the least relevant. The\n\u003e question is whether people using full nodes will upgrade. If they do, then\n\u003e miners are forced to upgrade too, or become irrelevant. If they don't, the\n\u003e upgrade is risky with or without miner adoption.\n\u003e\n\u003e --\n\u003e Pieter\n\u003e\n\u003e\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150513/0268ac4b/attachment.html\u003e",
"sig": "6b05bb5b44cff130500442818cbc861fbf6302ef6687b6d09351d0c0fc0d8fa71a0e67a2ac7dcdc4ada15062002d51f50556b8fb93612ba36f9ad63534ea6b8f"
}