[bitcoin-dev] High fees / centralization

Jared Lee Richardson jaredr26 at gmail.com
Fri Mar 31 02:01:49 UTC 2017


That would be blockchain sharding.

Would be amazing if someone could figure out how to do it trustlessly.  So
far I'm not convinced it is possible to resolve the conflicts between the
shards and commit transactions between shards.

On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 6:39 PM, Vladimir Zaytsev <
vladimir.zaytsev at gmail.com> wrote:

> There must be a way to organize “branches” of smaller activity to join
> main tree after they grow. Outsider a bit, I see going circles here, but
> not everything must be accepted in the chain. Good idea as it is, it’s just
> too early to record every sight….
>
>
>
> On Mar 30, 2017, at 5:52 PM, Jared Lee Richardson via bitcoin-dev <
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> > Further, we are very far from the point (in my appraisal) where fees
> are high enough to block home users from using the network.
>
> This depends entirely on the usecase entirely.  Most likely even without a
> blocksize increase, home purchases will be large enough to fit on the
> blocksize in the forseeable future.  Microtransactions(<$0.25) on the other
> hand aren't viable no matter what we try to do - There's just too much data.
>
> Most likely, transaction fees above $1 per tx will become unappealing for
> many consumers, and above $10 is likely to be niche-level.  It is hard to
> say with any certainty, but average credit card fees give us some
> indications to work with - $1.2 on a $30 transaction, though paid by the
> business and not the consumer.
>
> Without blocksize increases, fees higher than $1/tx are basically
> inevitable, most likely before 2020.  Running a node only costs $10/month
> if that.  If we were going to favor node operational costs that highly in
> the weighting, we'd better have a pretty solid justification with
> mathematical models or examples.
>
> > We should not throw away the core innovation of monetary sovereignty in
> pursuit of supporting 0.1% of the world's daily transactions.
>
> If we can easily have both, why not have both?
>
> An altcoin with both will take Bitcoin's monetary sovereignty crown by
> default.  No crown, no usecases, no Bitcoin.
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20170330/b24ba14f/attachment.html>


More information about the bitcoin-dev mailing list