From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <tomh@thinlink.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
	[172.17.192.35])
	by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B326C83D
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Fri, 24 Jul 2015 06:30:32 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-oi0-f47.google.com (mail-oi0-f47.google.com
	[209.85.218.47])
	by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ABEE48D
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Fri, 24 Jul 2015 06:30:30 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by oigd21 with SMTP id d21so12121545oig.1
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Thu, 23 Jul 2015 23:30:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
	d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
	h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date
	:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type
	:content-transfer-encoding;
	bh=FV2niKzBpBUBfg3Rqysz/cVBblVnebZr7DVD17h/9ck=;
	b=mjqpdMC/gsScq5L96cAszLnJAuM64LaGOENgcSS3HjGOQSbaIwVO/CkvCME8bBruEe
	+DVve6CzMEjsqAxMFzB8LegDIfncEf8nUuZOSfIiq90Al5KtDUFU22xwh7EQi5nuQH3l
	HlggwjMuDV9+aUJGU9gDbnN73C8IuIXuMmZF82s6RJ7WwubzlS8GLWvpxI0aUxYnrCtb
	TI+iPk0JkpmxolK7S374iCkInibaJYZ7E6Uh6rF5RrmxNFlR/gPw8nWwx2Yj/jgQ9Gvq
	zJPYNIbvD8IqI/DpwokHZ6ViW6dgP2jOErlzixw9jIPa9+LFst9PnzsRUwKqPQvYG/Fr
	IB0A==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmu2paZ6pDUIqCcG09V95ecuGbc5Xple/YCEA+hfLWx65EiSSnlp1/SAbgTc75Boa1F5Fp8
X-Received: by 10.182.210.234 with SMTP id mx10mr5280130obc.1.1437719430008;
	Thu, 23 Jul 2015 23:30:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.89] (99-8-65-117.lightspeed.davlca.sbcglobal.net.
	[99.8.65.117]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id
	f8sm4383984obv.25.2015.07.23.23.30.27
	(version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128);
	Thu, 23 Jul 2015 23:30:28 -0700 (PDT)
To: =?UTF-8?Q?Jorge_Tim=c3=b3n?= <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
References: <CAPg+sBgs-ouEMu=LOVCmOyCGwfM1Ygxooz0shyvAuHDGGZYfJw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPg+sBgugLSVEwDLXhgey86_rM2fTjGWXFuXsiZioJKCZiHiNg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADm_WcbnQQGZoQ92twfUvbzqGwu__xLn+BYOkHPZY_YT1pFrbA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPWm=eW8RgrG1CMEAMN4GeiMjZecFvNtZB_Y4rZNeofWSD0=Wg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADm_WcYCUHs9Qe_T6WJOCUSK6stXYD8v6z5JcGHfRMURoOSFTA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABm2gDq3JyZx0QCRDbcNSLSOBKdpi4h_7VN1XL8N42U38+eBAA@mail.gmail.com>
	<55B113AF.40500@thinlink.com>
	<CABm2gDp5-D3r=0rbq28-h8ewyHY8Rj9B0AFjO1fWfyuUEDMMfg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Tom Harding <tomh@thinlink.com>
X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110
Message-ID: <55B1DB84.6070001@thinlink.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 23:30:28 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
	Thunderbird/38.1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CABm2gDp5-D3r=0rbq28-h8ewyHY8Rj9B0AFjO1fWfyuUEDMMfg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
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
Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin Core and hard forks
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
	<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
	<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2015 06:30:32 -0000

On 7/23/2015 10:51 AM, Jorge Timón wrote:
> We know perfectly well that the system will need to eventually be
> sustained by fees.

Fee revenue can rise just as easily without increased BTC fee rates.

Two avenues that are just as effective: increased exchange rate,
increased number of fee-paying transactions.  Neither of these avenues
benefits from increased "fee pressure" (scarcity of block space).


> I just disagree that changing a constant is a "scaling solution".
>

Nobody here thinks that.  Even on Reddit, not very many people seem to
think that.