Re: [bitcoin-dev] Why Satoshi's temporary anti-spam measure isn'ttemporary

[Bryan Bishop <kanzure@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1413 bytes --]

On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 10:55 AM, Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 11:24 AM, Bryan Bishop via bitcoin-dev <
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
>> Because any decentralized system is going to have high transaction costs
>> and scarcity anyway.
>
>
> This is a meme that keeps coming up that I think just isn't true.
>

Specifically I was replying to the argument that went like "the bitcoin
system, in any of its futures with a bunch of non-zero transaction fees, is
going to be replaced by a decentralized system that can commit to
transactions that have lower or zero transaction fees, and which also
otherwise provides the same benefits as bitcoin". My reply was that
decentralized systems are going to have physical limitations that force
their solutions to look certain ways, which would do something like, for
example, explain why there were "$10 fees" in that original scenario in the
first place. Your reply does not seem to share this context?

Also, I don't mean to start a discussion about internet architecture, but
ISP peering agreements do not look particularly like a cryptographic,
decentralized system to me at all. I agree that the internet needs better
architecture. I would call the IETF about this but I think Greg would be
the one to answer or something :-). Would be sorta redundant, heh.

- Bryan
http://heybryan.org/
1 512 203 0507

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2308 bytes --]