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 C964E8D8 for ; Tue, 11 Aug 2015 19:27:48 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-wi0-f179.google.com (mail-wi0-f179.google.com [209.85.212.179]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4034E131 for ; Tue, 11 Aug 2015 19:27:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: by wibhh20 with SMTP id hh20so210791932wib.0 for ; Tue, 11 Aug 2015 12:27:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=rAA+xUHqtwkW3bn3iu92XoivQlUj0aJNXpptjXZz01A=; b=I75UrEMIOvDWgLMLKccJsxJgj5h8Sj4lE6s8BIYfy7T8blW9FNun2ha7O5rmU2DCVE ME3hKrH7uCo3AwtyHZ3C0J7oHL7x1l4FtGwdA7fHles7IJbVy4dbeoNHofHaS2Qt8hsi s64DPkzH04CzmaFMdPCGx0G39E8HkJBnI7pfP4NMheNKPNqI1NZsiiCK4US+mCs2pGie 8qw/nLyLI/9en5eWlqHgyg+K38pN3oEjlSq4X3vZb30PGs9UFZTa11NRZ8W/7N6uDcbr Hb2xFtF68pgod9cPh7vdBRKrnd9Px5XL/5f1leIz5Os2+ihQOen29u3Rgysi1GCcx5t4 AzHA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmybG86e0QIRD7ANvL7Y3R3Fm7ItebRxGkNLRAOJtCb8omaCekuN276r5tlAfeAqMW/jE+q MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.194.120.198 with SMTP id le6mr59310454wjb.133.1439321267056; Tue, 11 Aug 2015 12:27:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.194.31.230 with HTTP; Tue, 11 Aug 2015 12:27:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.194.31.230 with HTTP; Tue, 11 Aug 2015 12:27:46 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <8181630.GdAj0CPZYc@coldstorage> Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2015 21:27:46 +0200 Message-ID: From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= To: Michael Naber Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e01160002d74c80051d0e18ec X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,HTML_MESSAGE, 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 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: Tue, 11 Aug 2015 19:27:48 -0000 --089e01160002d74c80051d0e18ec Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Aug 11, 2015 8:46 PM, "Michael Naber" wrote: > > Hi Jorge: Many people would like to participate in a global consensus network -- which is a network where all the participating nodes are aware of and agree upon every transaction. Constraining Bitcoin capacity below the limits of technology will only push users seeking to participate in a global consensus network to other solutions which have adequate capacity, such as BitcoinXT or others. Note that lightning / hub and spoke do not meet requirements for users wishing to participate in global consensus, because they are not global consensus networks, since all participating nodes are not aware of all transactions. Even if you are right, first fees will raise and that will be what pushes people to other altcoins, no? Can we agree that the first step in any potentially bad situation is hitting the limit and then fees rising as a consequence? --089e01160002d74c80051d0e18ec Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On Aug 11, 2015 8:46 PM, "Michael Naber" <mickeybob@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Jorge: Many people would like to participate in a global consensus = network -- which is a network where all the participating nodes are aware o= f and agree upon every transaction.=C2=A0Constraining Bitcoin capacity belo= w the limits of technology will only push users seeking to participate in a= global consensus network to other solutions which have adequate capacity, = such as BitcoinXT or others. Note that lightning / hub and spoke do not mee= t requirements for users wishing to participate in global consensus, becaus= e they are not global consensus networks, since all participating nodes are= not aware of all transactions.=C2=A0

Even if you are right, first fees will raise and that will b= e what pushes people to other altcoins, no?
Can we agree that the first step in any potentially bad situation is hittin= g the limit and then fees rising as a consequence?

--089e01160002d74c80051d0e18ec--