[bitcoin-dev] Block size following technological growth
venzen at mail.bihthai.net
Fri Jul 31 11:43:58 UTC 2015
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Mike Hearn, I might be a nobody to you, but you know i talk with
skill, so let me tell this Friday...
On 07/31/2015 05:16 PM, Mike Hearn via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> I agree with Gavin
You would, of course.
> Bitcoin can support a large scale and it must, for all sorts of
> reasons. Amongst others:
> 1. Currencies have network effects. A currency that has few users
> is simply not competitive with currencies that have many. There's
> no such thing as a settlement currency for high value transactions
> only, as evidenced by the ever-dropping importance of gold.
References are imperative if you want to appeal to intelligence in
this list. Studies. Impirical evidence. The above sounds like a a
mainstream precis of how money works - an over-simplistic precis. It's
more complex than that. Besides, all we know for a fact is that
currencies come and go. That's not me being down on Bitcoin - that is
the historical record.
> 2. A decentralised currency that the vast majority can't use
> doesn't change the amount of centralisation in the world. Most
> people will still end up using banks, with all the normal
> problems. You cannot solve a problem by creating a theoretically
> pure solution that's out of reach of ordinary people: just ask
> academic cryptographers!
Conjecture. And assumption. Banks might not accept most people
forever. Or banks' credibility might not survive the next credit
contraction, for example.
> 3. Growth is a part of the social contract. It always has been.
Half the story. Casual observation shows that growth and contraction
alternate at every level of existence. Just because the present
fiat-era credit expansion has lasted 40 years does not mean that the
economy will keep expanding forever.
> The best quote Gregory can find to suggest Satoshi wanted small
> blocks is a one sentence hypothetical example about what /might/
yes, anyway, Greg Maxwell was justified in bringing you down a few
notches from your "I am Satoshi's rep on earth" history revision, you
were spinning there.
> 4. All the plans for some kind of ultra-throttled Bitcoin network
> The network of exchanges, payment processors and startups that are
> paying people to build infrastructure are all based on _the
> assumption_ that the market will grow significantly.
The assumption (my emphasis). You've seen that movie Pulp Fiction:
"Assume makes an "ass" of "U" and "me". Business + assumption =
gambling and potential loss of funds.
The ass-U-me cannot be laid at the doorstep of those developers who
prioritize security, decentralization and conservative, tested
progress of scaling.
> So why should anyone go through the massive hassle of setting up
> exchanges, without the lure of large future profits?
Their SWOT analysis includes risks from the banking sector, too. Plus
competition from other exchanges. A sapling 0.x Bitcoin community is
not responsible for nannying anyone's lucrative business model at the
expense of security. How would that make the developers look in
relation to their duty of custody of the protocol? To this and future
generations: Not Good.
> 5. Bitcoin needs users, lots of them, for its political survival.
> There are many people out there who would like to see digital cash
> disappear, or be regulated out of existence.
Nonsense, and again that assumption about "how things work" you like
to high horse so. Bitcoin's political survival is guaranteed by its
censorship resistance and its array of innovative and unique utility
functions. What's more, the caliber of developer working on Bitcoin is
not just pulled out of a hat and harnessed for an arbitrary altcoin.
Sometimes the fire of moral incentive overrides monetary reward.
The Fed, Nasdaq, IBM, and every other company whose trusted authority
is being threatened by this flagship are developing blockchains in a
hurry. How is that "many people out there who would like to see
digital cash disappear"? Why would you even type such a blatant falsehood?
> If Bitcoin is a tiny, obscure currency used by drug dealers and a
> handful of crypto-at-any-cost geeks, the cost of simply banning it
> outright will seem trivial and the hammer will drop. There won't be
> a large scale payment network OR a high-value settlement network.
> And then the world is really screwed, because nobody will get a
> second chance for a very long time.
That is a low estimation of Bitcoin. Your framing does not honor
Bitcoin or the hard work - your _own_ hard work - on this project.
If you noticed, there has been an increase in technical discussion in
this list in recent days - with the goal of comparing and testing the
various blocksize proposals.
Mike Hearn, I am sorry to say that your pronouncements sound like jazz
- - but jazz without rhythm.
"So what?" - Miles Davis
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the bitcoin-dev