From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 34AE926C for ; Wed, 12 Aug 2015 07:54:42 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from pmx.vmail.no (pmx.vmail.no [193.75.16.11]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 994A818D for ; Wed, 12 Aug 2015 07:54:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pmx.vmail.no (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (pmx.isp.as2116.net) with SMTP id B40D6447BA for ; Wed, 12 Aug 2015 09:54:39 +0200 (CEST) Received: from smtp.bluecom.no (smtp.bluecom.no [193.75.75.28]) by pmx.vmail.no (pmx.isp.as2116.net) with ESMTP id 4E7D4444CB for ; Wed, 12 Aug 2015 09:54:39 +0200 (CEST) Received: from pluto.localnet (unknown [81.191.183.21]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.bluecom.no (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3C66519F for ; Wed, 12 Aug 2015 09:54:38 +0200 (CEST) From: Thomas Zander To: Bitcoin Dev Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 09:54:24 +0200 Message-ID: <1754831.BkYoPF5aHZ@pluto> User-Agent: KMail/4.14.1 (Linux/3.16.0-4-amd64; KDE/4.14.2; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Fees and the block-finding process X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 07:54:42 -0000 On Tuesday 11. August 2015 21.27.46 Jorge Tim=F3n wrote: > Can we agree that the first step in any potentially bad situation is > hitting the limit and then fees rising as a consequence? Fees rising due to scarcity has nothing to do with the problem. Its a=20= consequence that is irrelevant to me. Bad situations are roughly divided into two parts; * technical * marketing. The technical part is that we already know of several technical=20 solutions we=20 will need when we have a forever growing backlog. Without them, nodes=20= will=20 crash. On top of that, we can expect a lot of new problems we don't know yet. IT experts are serious when they say that they avoid maxing out a=20 system like=20 the plague. Marketing wise full blocks means we can only serve 3 transactions a=20 second.=20 Which is beyond trivial. All the banks, nasdaq, countries, businesses=20= etc etc=20 now contemplating using Bitcoin itself will see this as a risk too big = to=20 ignore and the 1Mb Bitcoin will loose 99% of its perceived value. If you want fees to rise, then it should be viable to be used, withing = 6=20 months, for something bigger than the economic size of Iceland.=20 (=3Drandom=20 smallest country I know). --=20 Thomas Zander