From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1Ytink-0000UF-Dc for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sat, 16 May 2015 20:35:16 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of phauna.org designates 208.82.98.102 as permitted sender) client-ip=208.82.98.102; envelope-from=ogunden@phauna.org; helo=peacecow.phauna.org; Received: from phauna.org ([208.82.98.102] helo=peacecow.phauna.org) by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.76) id 1Ytinj-0005Op-N6 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sat, 16 May 2015 20:35:16 +0000 Received: from pool-108-5-112-231.nwrknj.fios.verizon.net ([108.5.112.231] helo=[192.168.50.11]) by peacecow.phauna.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1Ytind-0002sD-DP for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sat, 16 May 2015 15:35:10 -0500 Message-ID: <5557A9F9.1080408@phauna.org> Date: Sat, 16 May 2015 16:35:05 -0400 From: Owen Gunden User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net References: <5550D8BE.6070207@electrum.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam_score: -2.9 X-Spam_score_int: -28 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: Spam detection software, running on the system "peacecow.phauna.org", has identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: On 05/13/2015 09:31 PM, Aaron Voisine wrote: > > by people and businesses deciding to not use on-chain settlement. > > I completely agree. Increasing fees will cause people voluntary > economize on blockspace by finding alternatives, i.e. not bitcoin. [...] Content analysis details: (-2.9 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -1.0 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] X-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for sender-domain -0.0 T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature X-Headers-End: 1Ytinj-0005Op-N6 Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Long-term mining incentives X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 16 May 2015 20:35:16 -0000 On 05/13/2015 09:31 PM, Aaron Voisine wrote: > > by people and businesses deciding to not use on-chain settlement. > > I completely agree. Increasing fees will cause people voluntary > economize on blockspace by finding alternatives, i.e. not bitcoin. 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. > A fee however is a known, upfront cost... unpredictable transaction failure in > most cases will be a far higher, unacceptable cost to the user than the > actual fee. 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? > The higher the costs of using the system, the lower the > adoption as a store-of-value. 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.