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 E28B1491 for ; Wed, 29 Jul 2015 22:12:04 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail.bihthai.net (unknown [5.255.87.165]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A95E41D4 for ; Wed, 29 Jul 2015 22:12:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.8.0.6] (unknown [10.8.0.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: venzen) by mail.bihthai.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D091F20BE8; Thu, 30 Jul 2015 00:13:39 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <55B94FAD.7040205@mail.bihthai.net> Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 05:11:57 +0700 From: Venzen Khaosan Reply-To: venzen@mail.bihthai.net Organization: Bihthai Bai Mai User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Raystonn ." References: <1B7F00D3-41AE-44BF-818D-EC4EF279DC11@gmail.com><37D282C2-EF9C-4B8B-91E8-7D613B381824@phauna.org> In-Reply-To: OpenPGP: id=1CF07D66; url=pool.sks-keyservers.net Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE autolearn=no 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] Why Satoshi's temporary anti-spam measure isn'ttemporary 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, 29 Jul 2015 22:12:05 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Raystonn, I'm aware that you're addressing your question to Greg Maxwell, however a point you keep stating as fact calls for reference: On 07/30/2015 04:28 AM, Raystonn . via bitcoin-dev wrote: [snip] > How do you plan to address the bleeding of value from Bitcoin to > alternative lower-fee blockchains created by the artificially-high > bitcoin transaction fees when users begin looking for the cheapest > way to send value? Cheapest way to send value? Is this what Bitcoin is trying to do? So all of the smart contract, programmable money, consensus coding and tremendous developer effort is bent to the consumer demand for cheaper fees. Surely thou jests! > Modern economic study has shown that liquidity moves to the > location of least friction. Modern economic study? Can you please provide a link or reference to the study you are referring to. "liquidity moves to the location of least friction" This sounds like "econo-speak" and makes no sense. The definition of Liquidity is the degree to which an asset/security can be bought or sold in the market without affecting the price. That is why bitcoin is said to have low liquidity: buying or selling only 100 BTC visibly affects the exchange price. You probably mean "people like cheap fees", which is true, but as others have said, because of Bitcoin's powerful features, they are willing to pay higher fees and wait longer for transactions to execute. As for your public cross-examination of Greg Maxwell, your case seems to be made on the assumption that limiting the size of the blockchain is an attempt to artificially raise tx fees, but it is not the case (as you and others repeatedly argue) that reluctance to concede blocksize is an attempt to constrain capacity. Greg Maxwell thoroughly explained in this thread that the protocol's current state of development relies on blocksize for security and, ultimately, as a means of protecting its degree of decentralization. Surely, this is an obvious concern even for those who are campaigning for the hare-brained ideal of making Bitcoin a "faster, cheaper alternative" to visa or paypal? If we lose decentralization, we lose the whole thing, right? Incorrect or correct? -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJVuU+rAAoJEGwAhlQc8H1m9nkH/00xXJ53H4qvHjPrdNRniwvB RXi96QjbnVj/fxU2J2TBPYF1LxJ13avyL58bbaJF7GKqcpoYNZArCKLQyGaZGCTp h7Oe/0S+b1QCrvxcVK8Ikeb7a1h9wnhAPf1FvAWoJ1cFGx/qGHetKqx1dQTWkVWz Mp17vjaofmp2OhBzh0Smj+wV9hXn9w9giZKc6UGvC0Qc7Rf3GL/YVJzM2CZNvlLS YhQSqnnqduugYztqLV/NvNExF41zC2IMyNmA41q46v/nh8stNSIcJleD39csNMfx BXjrlnPfZ+JI4RhiH3I0qjOYWPtBH9od788DY509EOn3MT4vU+EVcQaxyuFqZyw= =lQvy -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----