[bitcoin-dev] Fees and the block-finding process
jtimon at jtimon.cc
Tue Aug 11 19:53:56 UTC 2015
On Aug 11, 2015 9:37 PM, "Michael Naber" <mickeybob at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
You didn't answer the 2 questions...
Anyway, if we don't care about centralization at all, we can just remove
the limit: that's what "technology can provide".
Maybe in that case it is developers who move to a decentralized
> 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...
More information about the bitcoin-dev