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 CD290481 for ; Thu, 30 Jul 2015 15:41:34 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-wi0-f169.google.com (mail-wi0-f169.google.com [209.85.212.169]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 956661F3 for ; Thu, 30 Jul 2015 15:41:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: by wicgb10 with SMTP id gb10so249544820wic.1 for ; Thu, 30 Jul 2015 08:41:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=MRlIORVkr1bHDQ/FXQbly645jlET5YX+64EybjgErUQ=; b=L0/fOqTQsPWfTpu0jE7RXI+xiAnFwRTITN76sMs3kVnyj47fPWpwj0foJqzpt527o3 8wvNJaPua/Zdm0iCuU53foTL7cYFQYqqdtOrgmv3Ha/2jDwT7wmQJ35nKmHD+RChTIO/ l0HctcXhl5ReRg6ihcqR56JWiAJ2wAszXElQCnCUsKuxXDpbxedx1qpSKUDtVkrhd8Kk q5kmA7gKS/5EnREvL02AaHXKTNVb+5yhaioJkcYwfrfcua7W7u0UTgChkySacPwuoNOo wVZJhRXT8Z1A+F2Nx/R22WfnV4k4JvC9XoStzrhR7MtOJ7sKy0j0t3Zh+HFDRzg/+yIA oACA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQk6pGsocUBgdE/q46EEbivTM/HhCLxHkv6WdGQnBovHo3y0sjpIV0WaC9j0FbmCx8IEKSt0 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.194.238.39 with SMTP id vh7mr16778671wjc.109.1438270890357; Thu, 30 Jul 2015 08:41:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.194.95.168 with HTTP; Thu, 30 Jul 2015 08:41:30 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <2905605.OvbZMWuhGy@coldstorage> References: <1B7F00D3-41AE-44BF-818D-EC4EF279DC11@gmail.com> <55B9EB68.9020703@mail.bihthai.net> <2905605.OvbZMWuhGy@coldstorage> Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 17:41:30 +0200 Message-ID: From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= To: Thomas Zander Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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 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: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 15:41:34 -0000 On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 4:52 PM, Thomas Zander via bitcoin-dev wrote: > On Thursday 30. July 2015 11.38.00 Jorge Tim=C3=B3n via bitcoin-dev wrote= : >> It is important ro note that even if lightning was never developed, the >> block size remains at 1 MB forever and fees rise to 10 usd per transacti= on, >> such "high fees" are still extremely competitive with non-decentralized >> payment systems that have proportional fees. > > > What makes you think that when there is such a low availability of transa= ction > space that paying to be included costs you $10, that Bitcoin is not going= to > be outcompeted and replaced or otherwise regarded as worthless? I'm just saying that rational economic actors will prefer to pay 10 usd over 11 usd in fees. My example was: 10 usd flat fee vs 1% fee (both numbers pulled out of a hat= ). Well, 10 usd fees is cheaper than 1% fees for any transacted amount greater than 1000 usd. Take into account that this is just an extreme example to make my point: hopefully fees will never rise to a value as high as 10 usd.