📅 Original date posted:2015-08-11
📝 Original message:-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Hey Angel,
On 08/11/2015 02:14 AM, Angel Leon via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> -policy neutrality. - It can't be censored. - it can't be shut
> down - and the rules cannot change from underneath you.
>
> except it can be shutdown the minute it actually gets used by its
> inability to scale.
>
> what's the point of having all this if nobody can use it? what's
> the point of going through all that energy and CO2 for a mere
> 24,000 transactions an hour?
>
> It's clear that it's just a matter of time before it collapses.
>
> Here's a simple proposal (concept) that doesn't pretend to set a
> fixed block size limit as you can't ever know the demands the
> future will bring
> https://gist.github.com/gubatron/143e431ee01158f27db4
This seems to be a really good idea... May I add in here something
that's been dismissed before but I will mention it again anyway...
http://is.gd/DiFuRr "dynamic block size adjustment"
My sense has been that something like this could be coupled with
Garzik's BIP 100. For some reason I keep getting attacked for saying
this.
/RantOff
>
> We don't need to go as far as countries with hyper inflation trying
> to use the technology to make it collapse, anybody here who has
> distributed commercial/free end user software knows that any small
> company out there installs more copies in a couple weeks than all
> the bitcoin users we have at the moment, all we need is a single
> company/project with a decent amount of users who are now enabled
> to transact directly on the blockchain to screw it all up (perhaps
> OpenBazaar this winter could make this whole thing come down,
> hopefully they'll take this debate and the current limitations
> before their release, and boy are they coding nonstop on it now
> that they got funded), the last of your fears should be a malicious
> government trying to shut you down, for that to happen you must
> make an impact first, for now this is a silly game in the grand
> scheme of things.
>
> And you did sound pretty bad, all of his points were very valid and
> they share the concern of many people, many investors,
> entrepreneurs putting shitload of money, time and their lives on a
> much larger vision than that of a network that does a mere 3,500
> tx/hour, but some people seem to be able to live in impossible or
> useless ideals.
>
> It's simply irresponsible to not want to give the network a chance
> to grow a bit more. Miners centralizing is inevitable given the POW
> based consensus, hobbists-mining is only there for countries with
> very cheap energy.
>
> If things remain this way, this whole thing will be a massive
> failure and it will probably take another decade before we can open
> our mouths about cryptocurrencies, decentralization and what not,
> and this stubornness will be the one policy that censored everyone,
> that shutdown everyone, that made the immutable rules not matter.
>
> Perhaps it will be Stellar what ends up delivering at this stubborn
> pace.
>
> http://twitter.com/gubatron
>
> On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 4:38 AM, Thomas Zander via bitcoin-dev
> <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> <mailto:bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org>> wrote:
>
>> It follows then, that if we make a decision now which destroys
>> that property, which makes it possible to censor bitcoin, to deny
>> service, or to pressure miners into changing rules contrary to
>> user interests, then Bitcoin is no longer interesting.
>
> You asked to be convinced of the need for bigger blocks. I gave
> that. What makes you think bitcoin will break when more people use
> it?
>
> Sent on the go, excuse the brevity. *From: *Mark Friedenbach *Sent:
> *Tuesday, 11 August 2015 08:10 *To: *Thomas Zander *Cc: *Bitcoin
> Dev *Subject: *Re: [bitcoin-dev] Fees and the block-finding
> process
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 11:31 PM, Thomas Zander via bitcoin-dev
> <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> <mailto:bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org>> wrote:
>
> On Monday 10. August 2015 23.03.39 <tel:2015%2023.03.39> Mark
> Friedenbach wrote:
>> This is where things diverge. It's fine to pick a new limit or
>> growth trajectory. But defend it with data and reasoned
>> analysis.
>
> We currently serve about 0,007% of the world population sending
> maybe one transaction a month. This can only go up.
>
> There are about 20 currencies in the world that are unstable and
> showing early signs of hyperinflation. If even small percentage of
> these people cash-out and get Bitcoins for their savings you'd have
> the amount of people using Bitcoin as savings go from maybe half a
> million to 10 million in the space of a couple of months. Why so
> fast? Because all the world currencies are linked. Practically all
> currencies follow the USD, and while that one may stay robust and
> standing, the linkage has been shown in the past to cause
> chain-effects.
>
> It is impossible to predict how much uptake Bitcoin will take, but
> we have seen big rises in price as Cyprus had a bailin and then
> when Greece first showed bad signs again. Lets do our due diligence
> and agree that in the current world economy there are sure signs
> that people are considering Bitcoin on a big scale.
>
> Bigger amount of people holding Bitcoin savings won't make the
> transaction rate go up very much, but if you have feet on the
> ground you already see that people go back to barter in countries
> like Poland, Ireland, Greece etc. And Bitcoin will be an
> alternative to good to ignore. Then transaction rates will go up.
> Dramatically.
>
> If you are asking for numbers, that is a bit tricky. Again; we are
> at 0,007%... Thats like a f-ing rounding error in the world
> economy. You can't reason from that. Its like using a float to do
> calculations that you should have done in a double and getting
> weird output.
>
> Bottom line is that a maximum size of 8Mb blocks is not that odd.
> Because a 20 times increase is very common in a "company" that is
> about 6 years old. For instance Android was about that age when it
> started to get shipped by non- Google companies. There the increase
> was substantially bigger and the company backing it was definitely
> able to change direction faster than the Bitcoin oiltanker can
> change direction.
>
> ...
>
> Another metric to remember; if you follow hackernews (well, the
> incubator more than the linked articles) you'd be exposed to the
> thinking of these startups. Their only criteria is growth. and this
> is rather substantial growth. Like 150% per month. Naturally, most
> of these build on top of html or other existing technologies. But
> the point is that exponential growth is expected in any startup.
> They typically have a much much more agressive timeline, though.
> Every month instead of every year. Having exponential growth in the
> blockchain is really not odd and even if we have LN or sidechains
> or the next changetip, this space will be used. And we will still
> have scarcity.
>
>
> I'm sorry, I really don't want to sound like a jerk, but not a
> single word of that mattered. Yes we all want Bitcoin to scale
> such that every person in the world can use it without difficulty.
> However if that were all that we cared about then I would be
> remiss if I did not point out that there are plenty of better,
> faster, and cheaper solutions to finding global consensus over a
> payment ledger than Bitcoin. Architectures which are
> algorithmically superior in their scaling properties. Indeed they
> are already implemented and you can use them today:
>
> https://www.stellar.org/ http://opentransactions.org/
>
> So why do I work on Bitcoin, and why do I care about the outcome
> of this debate? Because Bitcoin offers one thing, and one thing
> only which alternative architectures fundamentally lack: policy
> neutrality. It can't be censored, it can't be shut down, and the
> rules cannot change from underneath you. *That* is what Bitcoin
> offers that can't be replicated at higher scale with a SQL
> database and an audit log.
>
> It follows then, that if we make a decision now which destroys
> that property, which makes it possible to censor bitcoin, to deny
> service, or to pressure miners into changing rules contrary to
> user interests, then Bitcoin is no longer interesting. We might as
> well get rid of mining at that point and make Bitcoin look like
> Stellar or Open-Transactions because at least then we'd scale even
> better and not be pumping millions of tons of CO2 into the
> atmosphere from running all those ASICs.
>
> On the other side, 3Tb harddrives are sold, which take 8Mb blocks
> without problems.
>
>
> Straw man, storage is not an issue.
>
>
> You can buy broadband in every relevant country that easily
> supports the bandwidth we need. (remember we won't jump to 8Mb in a
> day, it will likely take at least 6 months).
>
>
> Neither one of those assertions is clear. Keep in mind the goal is
> to have Bitcoin survive active censorship. Presumably that means
> being able to run a node even in the face of a hostile ISP or
> government. Furthermore, it means being location independent and
> being able to move around. In many places the higher the bandwidth
> requirements the fewer the number of ISPs that are available to
> service you, and the more visible you are.
>
> It may also be necessary to be able to run over Tor. And not just
> today's Tor which is developed, serviced, and supported by the US
> government, but a Tor or I2P that future governments have turned
> hostile towards and actively censor or repress. Or existing
> authoritative governments, for that matter. How much bandwidth
> would be available through those connections?
>
> It may hopefully never be necessary to operate under such
> constraints, except by freedom seeking individuals within existing
> totalitarian regimes. However the credible threat of doing so may
> be what keeps Bitcoin from being repressed in the first place. Lose
> the capability to go underground, and it will be pressured into
> regulation, eventually.
>
> To the second point, it has been previously pointed out that large
> miners stand to gain from larger blocks, for the same basic
> underlying reasons as selfish mining. The incentive is to increase
> blocks, and miners are able to do so at will and without cost. I
> would not be so certain that we wouldn't see large blocks sooner
> than that.
>
>
> We should get the inverted bloom filters stuff (or competing
> products) working at least on a one-to-one basis so we can solve
> the propagation time problem. There frankly is a huge amount of
> optimization that can be done in that area, we don't even use
> locality (pingtime) to optimize distribution.
>> From my experience you can expect a 2-magnitude speedup in that
> same 6 month period by focusing some research there.
>
>
> This is basically already deployed thanks to Matt's relay network.
> Further improvements are not going to have dramatic effects.
>
>
> Remember 8Gb/block still doesn't support VISA/Mastercard.
>
>
> No, it doesn't. And 8GB/block is ludicrously large -- it would
> absolutely, without any doubt destroy the very nature of Bitcoin,
> turning it into a fundamentally uninteresting reincarnation of the
> existing financial system. And still be unable to compete with
> VISA/Mastercard.
>
> So why then the pressure to go down a route that WILL lead to
> failure by your own metrics?
>
> I humbly suggest that maybe we should play the strengths of
> Bitcoin instead -- it's trustlessness via policy neutrality.
>
> Either that, or go work on Stellar. Because that's where it's
> headed otherwise.
>
>
> _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing
> list bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> <mailto:bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org>
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing
> list bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
- --
http://abis.io ~
"a protocol concept to enable decentralization
and expansion of a giving economy, and a new social good"
https://keybase.io/odinn
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJVypQUAAoJEGxwq/inSG8CZ3wH/1BsvmusOaCHnQMSrRAhUSTy
owzhWC/7AWUuav7MSr8upLK29oGnL+R4+PqmyuXmSBQDjwJmtlS11GXvEP3/BqzA
Qxz6EkEw/BRPe1YgvsS9LJNe90aIsiJRgeGls3XIirdzE0b6PSFn4GB0hn0XLU5Y
rNA6WlWHlZ5c/J26sxbEUdWzQZd7cTybJgmUVwqjqaviBpvg5iGIHhN/dHglqRvm
9/IscT3MNneXqD5QYwNvYUG2yjgRLgggnIufU37r8Rt+S6xJ0TK++R5hhKS5fF61
7xBQGDuczI+/mCGMc88JZxEIAV/H63SfIrD3bjqcfDnGXDl9SmrfdiIwyy3Yitc=
=zbGE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
odinn [ARCHIVE] /
npub1xv…5j2ga
2023-06-07 15:46:08
in reply to nevent1q…9s6k
Author Public Key
npub1xv3g4rkhj7eyape0cqjhc9g4ljdu5axqkgcdewma854a8r7e0mtsl5j2gaPublished at
2023-06-07 15:46:08Event JSON
{
"id": "e89974345bd347338d549ddea959965c2e6450393b3a44f3f5e3bf9425c331e6",
"pubkey": "33228a8ed797b24e872fc0257c1515fc9bca74c0b230dcbb7d3d2bd38fd97ed7",
"created_at": 1686152768,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"cf6411bfecea99b0c4ea78e985838b5e3fd62429f4968960ffd260356286401f",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"e25b18e1a81b748c9b7a80c7f563e9f004f531410a0d86c9add81319bf2172e8",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"ee0fa66772f633411e4432e251cfb15b1c0fe8cd8befd8b0d86eb302402a8b4a"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-08-11\n📝 Original message:-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----\nHash: SHA1\n\nHey Angel,\n\nOn 08/11/2015 02:14 AM, Angel Leon via bitcoin-dev wrote:\n\u003e -policy neutrality. - It can't be censored. - it can't be shut\n\u003e down - and the rules cannot change from underneath you.\n\u003e \n\u003e except it can be shutdown the minute it actually gets used by its \n\u003e inability to scale.\n\u003e \n\u003e what's the point of having all this if nobody can use it? what's\n\u003e the point of going through all that energy and CO2 for a mere \n\u003e 24,000 transactions an hour?\n\u003e \n\u003e It's clear that it's just a matter of time before it collapses.\n\u003e \n\u003e Here's a simple proposal (concept) that doesn't pretend to set a\n\u003e fixed block size limit as you can't ever know the demands the\n\u003e future will bring\n\u003e https://gist.github.com/gubatron/143e431ee01158f27db4\n\nThis seems to be a really good idea... May I add in here something\nthat's been dismissed before but I will mention it again anyway...\n\nhttp://is.gd/DiFuRr \"dynamic block size adjustment\"\nMy sense has been that something like this could be coupled with\nGarzik's BIP 100. For some reason I keep getting attacked for saying\nthis.\n\n/RantOff\n\n\u003e \n\u003e We don't need to go as far as countries with hyper inflation trying\n\u003e to use the technology to make it collapse, anybody here who has\n\u003e distributed commercial/free end user software knows that any small\n\u003e company out there installs more copies in a couple weeks than all\n\u003e the bitcoin users we have at the moment, all we need is a single\n\u003e company/project with a decent amount of users who are now enabled\n\u003e to transact directly on the blockchain to screw it all up (perhaps\n\u003e OpenBazaar this winter could make this whole thing come down,\n\u003e hopefully they'll take this debate and the current limitations\n\u003e before their release, and boy are they coding nonstop on it now\n\u003e that they got funded), the last of your fears should be a malicious\n\u003e government trying to shut you down, for that to happen you must\n\u003e make an impact first, for now this is a silly game in the grand \n\u003e scheme of things.\n\u003e \n\u003e And you did sound pretty bad, all of his points were very valid and\n\u003e they share the concern of many people, many investors,\n\u003e entrepreneurs putting shitload of money, time and their lives on a\n\u003e much larger vision than that of a network that does a mere 3,500\n\u003e tx/hour, but some people seem to be able to live in impossible or\n\u003e useless ideals.\n\u003e \n\u003e It's simply irresponsible to not want to give the network a chance\n\u003e to grow a bit more. Miners centralizing is inevitable given the POW\n\u003e based consensus, hobbists-mining is only there for countries with\n\u003e very cheap energy.\n\u003e \n\u003e If things remain this way, this whole thing will be a massive\n\u003e failure and it will probably take another decade before we can open\n\u003e our mouths about cryptocurrencies, decentralization and what not,\n\u003e and this stubornness will be the one policy that censored everyone,\n\u003e that shutdown everyone, that made the immutable rules not matter.\n\u003e \n\u003e Perhaps it will be Stellar what ends up delivering at this stubborn\n\u003e pace.\n\u003e \n\u003e http://twitter.com/gubatron\n\u003e \n\u003e On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 4:38 AM, Thomas Zander via bitcoin-dev \n\u003e \u003cbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org \n\u003e \u003cmailto:bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e\u003e wrote:\n\u003e \n\u003e\u003e It follows then, that if we make a decision now which destroys\n\u003e\u003e that property, which makes it possible to censor bitcoin, to deny\n\u003e\u003e service, or to pressure miners into changing rules contrary to\n\u003e\u003e user interests, then Bitcoin is no longer interesting.\n\u003e \n\u003e You asked to be convinced of the need for bigger blocks. I gave\n\u003e that. What makes you think bitcoin will break when more people use\n\u003e it?\n\u003e \n\u003e Sent on the go, excuse the brevity. *From: *Mark Friedenbach *Sent:\n\u003e *Tuesday, 11 August 2015 08:10 *To: *Thomas Zander *Cc: *Bitcoin\n\u003e Dev *Subject: *Re: [bitcoin-dev] Fees and the block-finding\n\u003e process\n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 11:31 PM, Thomas Zander via bitcoin-dev \n\u003e \u003cbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org \n\u003e \u003cmailto:bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e\u003e wrote:\n\u003e \n\u003e On Monday 10. August 2015 23.03.39 \u003ctel:2015%2023.03.39\u003e Mark \n\u003e Friedenbach wrote:\n\u003e\u003e This is where things diverge. It's fine to pick a new limit or\n\u003e\u003e growth trajectory. But defend it with data and reasoned\n\u003e\u003e analysis.\n\u003e \n\u003e We currently serve about 0,007% of the world population sending \n\u003e maybe one transaction a month. This can only go up.\n\u003e \n\u003e There are about 20 currencies in the world that are unstable and \n\u003e showing early signs of hyperinflation. If even small percentage of\n\u003e these people cash-out and get Bitcoins for their savings you'd have\n\u003e the amount of people using Bitcoin as savings go from maybe half a\n\u003e million to 10 million in the space of a couple of months. Why so\n\u003e fast? Because all the world currencies are linked. Practically all\n\u003e currencies follow the USD, and while that one may stay robust and\n\u003e standing, the linkage has been shown in the past to cause \n\u003e chain-effects.\n\u003e \n\u003e It is impossible to predict how much uptake Bitcoin will take, but\n\u003e we have seen big rises in price as Cyprus had a bailin and then\n\u003e when Greece first showed bad signs again. Lets do our due diligence\n\u003e and agree that in the current world economy there are sure signs\n\u003e that people are considering Bitcoin on a big scale.\n\u003e \n\u003e Bigger amount of people holding Bitcoin savings won't make the \n\u003e transaction rate go up very much, but if you have feet on the\n\u003e ground you already see that people go back to barter in countries\n\u003e like Poland, Ireland, Greece etc. And Bitcoin will be an\n\u003e alternative to good to ignore. Then transaction rates will go up.\n\u003e Dramatically.\n\u003e \n\u003e If you are asking for numbers, that is a bit tricky. Again; we are\n\u003e at 0,007%... Thats like a f-ing rounding error in the world \n\u003e economy. You can't reason from that. Its like using a float to do\n\u003e calculations that you should have done in a double and getting\n\u003e weird output.\n\u003e \n\u003e Bottom line is that a maximum size of 8Mb blocks is not that odd.\n\u003e Because a 20 times increase is very common in a \"company\" that is\n\u003e about 6 years old. For instance Android was about that age when it\n\u003e started to get shipped by non- Google companies. There the increase\n\u003e was substantially bigger and the company backing it was definitely\n\u003e able to change direction faster than the Bitcoin oiltanker can\n\u003e change direction.\n\u003e \n\u003e ...\n\u003e \n\u003e Another metric to remember; if you follow hackernews (well, the \n\u003e incubator more than the linked articles) you'd be exposed to the\n\u003e thinking of these startups. Their only criteria is growth. and this\n\u003e is rather substantial growth. Like 150% per month. Naturally, most\n\u003e of these build on top of html or other existing technologies. But\n\u003e the point is that exponential growth is expected in any startup.\n\u003e They typically have a much much more agressive timeline, though.\n\u003e Every month instead of every year. Having exponential growth in the\n\u003e blockchain is really not odd and even if we have LN or sidechains\n\u003e or the next changetip, this space will be used. And we will still\n\u003e have scarcity.\n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e I'm sorry, I really don't want to sound like a jerk, but not a \n\u003e single word of that mattered. Yes we all want Bitcoin to scale\n\u003e such that every person in the world can use it without difficulty. \n\u003e However if that were all that we cared about then I would be\n\u003e remiss if I did not point out that there are plenty of better,\n\u003e faster, and cheaper solutions to finding global consensus over a\n\u003e payment ledger than Bitcoin. Architectures which are\n\u003e algorithmically superior in their scaling properties. Indeed they\n\u003e are already implemented and you can use them today:\n\u003e \n\u003e https://www.stellar.org/ http://opentransactions.org/\n\u003e \n\u003e So why do I work on Bitcoin, and why do I care about the outcome\n\u003e of this debate? Because Bitcoin offers one thing, and one thing\n\u003e only which alternative architectures fundamentally lack: policy \n\u003e neutrality. It can't be censored, it can't be shut down, and the \n\u003e rules cannot change from underneath you. *That* is what Bitcoin \n\u003e offers that can't be replicated at higher scale with a SQL\n\u003e database and an audit log.\n\u003e \n\u003e It follows then, that if we make a decision now which destroys\n\u003e that property, which makes it possible to censor bitcoin, to deny \n\u003e service, or to pressure miners into changing rules contrary to\n\u003e user interests, then Bitcoin is no longer interesting. We might as\n\u003e well get rid of mining at that point and make Bitcoin look like\n\u003e Stellar or Open-Transactions because at least then we'd scale even\n\u003e better and not be pumping millions of tons of CO2 into the\n\u003e atmosphere from running all those ASICs.\n\u003e \n\u003e On the other side, 3Tb harddrives are sold, which take 8Mb blocks\n\u003e without problems.\n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e Straw man, storage is not an issue.\n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e You can buy broadband in every relevant country that easily \n\u003e supports the bandwidth we need. (remember we won't jump to 8Mb in a\n\u003e day, it will likely take at least 6 months).\n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e Neither one of those assertions is clear. Keep in mind the goal is \n\u003e to have Bitcoin survive active censorship. Presumably that means \n\u003e being able to run a node even in the face of a hostile ISP or \n\u003e government. Furthermore, it means being location independent and \n\u003e being able to move around. In many places the higher the bandwidth \n\u003e requirements the fewer the number of ISPs that are available to \n\u003e service you, and the more visible you are.\n\u003e \n\u003e It may also be necessary to be able to run over Tor. And not just \n\u003e today's Tor which is developed, serviced, and supported by the US \n\u003e government, but a Tor or I2P that future governments have turned \n\u003e hostile towards and actively censor or repress. Or existing \n\u003e authoritative governments, for that matter. How much bandwidth\n\u003e would be available through those connections?\n\u003e \n\u003e It may hopefully never be necessary to operate under such \n\u003e constraints, except by freedom seeking individuals within existing \n\u003e totalitarian regimes. However the credible threat of doing so may\n\u003e be what keeps Bitcoin from being repressed in the first place. Lose\n\u003e the capability to go underground, and it will be pressured into \n\u003e regulation, eventually.\n\u003e \n\u003e To the second point, it has been previously pointed out that large \n\u003e miners stand to gain from larger blocks, for the same basic \n\u003e underlying reasons as selfish mining. The incentive is to increase \n\u003e blocks, and miners are able to do so at will and without cost. I \n\u003e would not be so certain that we wouldn't see large blocks sooner \n\u003e than that.\n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e We should get the inverted bloom filters stuff (or competing \n\u003e products) working at least on a one-to-one basis so we can solve\n\u003e the propagation time problem. There frankly is a huge amount of\n\u003e optimization that can be done in that area, we don't even use\n\u003e locality (pingtime) to optimize distribution.\n\u003e\u003e From my experience you can expect a 2-magnitude speedup in that\n\u003e same 6 month period by focusing some research there.\n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e This is basically already deployed thanks to Matt's relay network. \n\u003e Further improvements are not going to have dramatic effects.\n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e Remember 8Gb/block still doesn't support VISA/Mastercard.\n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e No, it doesn't. And 8GB/block is ludicrously large -- it would \n\u003e absolutely, without any doubt destroy the very nature of Bitcoin, \n\u003e turning it into a fundamentally uninteresting reincarnation of the \n\u003e existing financial system. And still be unable to compete with \n\u003e VISA/Mastercard.\n\u003e \n\u003e So why then the pressure to go down a route that WILL lead to \n\u003e failure by your own metrics?\n\u003e \n\u003e I humbly suggest that maybe we should play the strengths of\n\u003e Bitcoin instead -- it's trustlessness via policy neutrality.\n\u003e \n\u003e Either that, or go work on Stellar. Because that's where it's\n\u003e headed otherwise.\n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing\n\u003e list bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org \n\u003e \u003cmailto:bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e \n\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing\n\u003e list bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org \n\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\u003e \n\n- -- \nhttp://abis.io ~\n\"a protocol concept to enable decentralization\nand expansion of a giving economy, and a new social good\"\nhttps://keybase.io/odinn\n-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----\nVersion: GnuPG v1\n\niQEcBAEBAgAGBQJVypQUAAoJEGxwq/inSG8CZ3wH/1BsvmusOaCHnQMSrRAhUSTy\nowzhWC/7AWUuav7MSr8upLK29oGnL+R4+PqmyuXmSBQDjwJmtlS11GXvEP3/BqzA\nQxz6EkEw/BRPe1YgvsS9LJNe90aIsiJRgeGls3XIirdzE0b6PSFn4GB0hn0XLU5Y\nrNA6WlWHlZ5c/J26sxbEUdWzQZd7cTybJgmUVwqjqaviBpvg5iGIHhN/dHglqRvm\n9/IscT3MNneXqD5QYwNvYUG2yjgRLgggnIufU37r8Rt+S6xJ0TK++R5hhKS5fF61\n7xBQGDuczI+/mCGMc88JZxEIAV/H63SfIrD3bjqcfDnGXDl9SmrfdiIwyy3Yitc=\n=zbGE\n-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----",
"sig": "f18163d9a008976a7f358f9d7f4f845dd8697b1250c170f413e2048466383cf00ea7f7db4d2ea052f3f1fd165a000eeebae5f3870f9ab77e4f4fcc2f253361f7"
}