📅 Original date posted:2015-05-16
📝 Original message:On Sat, May 16, 2015 at 1:35 PM, Owen Gunden <ogunden at phauna.org> wrote:
>
> This strikes me as a leap. There are alternatives that still use bitcoin
> as the unit of value, such as sidechains, offchain, etc. To say that
> these are "not bitcoin" is misleading.
>
The only options available today and in the near future that I'm aware of
are of the centralized custody variety, which is pretty bad in my opinion,
but your point is taken.
>
> Are we sure that raising the block size is the only way to avoid
> "unpredictable transaction failure"? If so, and it's as bad as you say
> it is, aren't we screwed anyway when we inevitably start hitting the cap
> (even if it's raised 10x or 20x)? And if that's the case, then don't we
> do a disservice to users by continuing to pretend that we can make this
> problem go away?
>
When we start bumping up against the block size limit, the transactions at
the margins will experience failure in a way that will be unpredictable to
current wallet software. We can slow blockchain growth by increasing fees
alone, without introducing the additional cost of unpredictability around
confirmation failure, which when it comes down to it is just another
(extreme) way to keep usage low. Instead of fees and unpredictable
confirmation, why not just have fees alone. A single, upfront, known cost.
>
>
> On what do you base this? Gold has a very high cost of using (storage,
> transport) and yet is perhaps the most widely accepted store of value.
>
I would argue that the reason gold is not the one world global currency
that it once was is because of those costs. That's why people shifted over
time to gold backed bank notes and eventually fiat.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150516/b3aa6233/attachment.html>;
Aaron Voisine [ARCHIVE] /
npub18g…knkzl
2023-06-07 15:34:48
in reply to nevent1q…ha5v
Author Public Key
npub18gjvug29c4yg46lmplq38e75gg6wn5mn8taytckcsr4jt8p74h3s5knkzlPublished at
2023-06-07 15:34:48Event JSON
{
"id": "6c7dd3491a17e17ae9fcdfce9028c99741d9b110e5e7a152d3aa35dca6c8e238",
"pubkey": "3a24ce2145c5488aebfb0fc113e7d44234e9d3733afa45e2d880eb259c3eade3",
"created_at": 1686152088,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"4fca8766cb3622944ad3338913b2eaab58533c317983b04a538d878303c3c989",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"39fd9a11151d451601952b0fe80dfe6846eb167bd1c9f4fdfc2c5daf66f59169",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"dc329a02c970aabf03b87185ef51c86afe4586fe3a148508af898af3fabc56a3"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-05-16\n📝 Original message:On Sat, May 16, 2015 at 1:35 PM, Owen Gunden \u003cogunden at phauna.org\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e\n\u003e This strikes me as a leap. There are alternatives that still use bitcoin\n\u003e as the unit of value, such as sidechains, offchain, etc. To say that\n\u003e these are \"not bitcoin\" is misleading.\n\u003e\n\nThe only options available today and in the near future that I'm aware of\nare of the centralized custody variety, which is pretty bad in my opinion,\nbut your point is taken.\n\n\n\u003e\n\u003e Are we sure that raising the block size is the only way to avoid\n\u003e \"unpredictable transaction failure\"? If so, and it's as bad as you say\n\u003e it is, aren't we screwed anyway when we inevitably start hitting the cap\n\u003e (even if it's raised 10x or 20x)? And if that's the case, then don't we\n\u003e do a disservice to users by continuing to pretend that we can make this\n\u003e problem go away?\n\u003e\n\nWhen we start bumping up against the block size limit, the transactions at\nthe margins will experience failure in a way that will be unpredictable to\ncurrent wallet software. We can slow blockchain growth by increasing fees\nalone, without introducing the additional cost of unpredictability around\nconfirmation failure, which when it comes down to it is just another\n(extreme) way to keep usage low. Instead of fees and unpredictable\nconfirmation, why not just have fees alone. A single, upfront, known cost.\n\n\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e On what do you base this? Gold has a very high cost of using (storage,\n\u003e transport) and yet is perhaps the most widely accepted store of value.\n\u003e\n\nI would argue that the reason gold is not the one world global currency\nthat it once was is because of those costs. That's why people shifted over\ntime to gold backed bank notes and eventually fiat.\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150516/b3aa6233/attachment.html\u003e",
"sig": "69a53d5623385e50c6072278af3c519da3658720c4f7d9bf9cadd03a2facacd34da61f84e59357cb132692d51aa1cf6e2369c9dadf30b997a92c6f68f8c3d80f"
}