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 8A1EBB19 for ; Sun, 28 Jun 2015 20:56:22 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-qk0-f169.google.com (mail-qk0-f169.google.com [209.85.220.169]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D30781BE for ; Sun, 28 Jun 2015 20:56:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: by qkeo142 with SMTP id o142so85115352qke.1 for ; Sun, 28 Jun 2015 13:56:21 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=bA3RJ2754ys28CsxDcdLkGyoMwppXDZZhRwtWPH8I14=; b=nuJJhfk06jA7fGVj3Nl2t4VV5IKcMfyscoSU/QqEy8tWxQnanG+SuWAjki8wVGAz4y sAT4rBihoaS9qL7gf+Uvdno94qiqmXLAJF4YTzP5xH5bQMLQbNVu9CntfQ7GNRUuZzEB Hn1R3H31wOYfALMNM1N1ke5idyUgqDtYX5IYESIrciFRibQkhw1diD4Zc5QXI+c5HNTf S4bFrHP9/ncYOcrgqQTITG2Xl2778+bZNxGqq6D4tEsQHuduwFSdhrwKUTASjdviWVv6 EjdSGg9FYeXbe75PXZ8XLQYv1d1b1N6n2I7hwbQHSieapp5p+3kMP4aabnlckF42G0tV z3Ng== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.55.20.16 with SMTP id e16mr24747277qkh.71.1435524981074; Sun, 28 Jun 2015 13:56:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.140.91.37 with HTTP; Sun, 28 Jun 2015 13:56:20 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <559022BE.2060503@mail.bihthai.net> References: <20150627074259.GA25420@amethyst.visucore.com> <20150627095501.C59B541A40@smtp.hushmail.com> <558E78CB.7070207@mail.bihthai.net> <559022BE.2060503@mail.bihthai.net> Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2015 13:56:20 -0700 Message-ID: From: Aaron Voisine To: venzen@mail.bihthai.net Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1144d25490316a05199a34cd X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_05,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,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 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 30 Jun 2015 20:41:24 +0000 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] The need for larger blocks 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: Sun, 28 Jun 2015 20:56:22 -0000 --001a1144d25490316a05199a34cd Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Moving the list to BCC, since this isn't really a technical discussion. On Sun, Jun 28, 2015 at 9:37 AM, Venzen Khaosan wrote: > > Bitcoin's exchange rate, as a commodity money floating freely in the > market, will go up and down according to speculative cycles and we > should conceptually separate its valuation in fiat terms, from its > fundamental value which is: mathematical consensus, cryptographic > transaction security and censorship resistance, etc. I get the feeling we might be reasoning from different underlying assumptions, but I don't think you can separate value that way. Those fundamental properties were chosen to serve the goal of creating a digital commodity money. They are useful only in as much as they serve ends that people value. Consensus, security, censorship resistance are valuable because they are desirable properties for money to have. If you want to argue that the properties of bitcoin are valuable for other things besides money, that's fine, but those other uses presumably can be accomplished with tiny amounts of bitcoin, so don't appreciably increase demand. > These values are > critically reliant on Bitcoin's *degree of decentralization* for them > to remain true and for Bitcoin to retain its meaning, and, therefore, > its value. That is what I point out when I say "greater adoption has > not reflected in the price chart". And that may remain the case for > evermore because the value is in the protocol, the blockchain and its > utility and degree of decentralization, not in the chart or the size > of the user base > I think it depends on what you mean by "adoption". Adoption as a store-of-value must necessarily increase the market price given the restricted and eventually fixed supply. If we're talking about merchant adoption as a payment system, or increased transaction volume, the yes, these things have no direct impact on the price. They only impact the price indirectly in as much as they encourage further adoption as a store-of-value. > I argue that we already know what the value of Bitcoin is. In its > current form Bitcoin most likely fulfills 80% or 90% of its eventual > fully evolved value. Increased adoption will not strengthen the > fundamentals, so let's proceed with scaling that will safeguard > Bitcoin's fundamental value and implement protections that ensure > quality of decentralization. > Increased adoption does strengthen the fundamentals. The most important fundamental for money is how many other people standardize on the same money, and want to hold it. This drives it's price in terms of other commodities. You want to hold what everyone else wants to hold. Aaron Voisine co-founder and CEO breadwallet.com --001a1144d25490316a05199a34cd Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Moving the list to BCC, since this isn't really a tech= nical discussion.

On Sun, Jun 28, 2015 at 9:37 AM, Venzen Khaosan <venzen@m= ail.bihthai.net> wrote:

Bitcoin's= exchange rate, as a commodity money floating freely in the
market, will go up and down according to speculative cycles and we
should conceptually separate its valuation in fiat terms, from its
fundamental value which is: mathematical consensus, cryptographic
transaction security and censorship resistance, etc.

=
I get the feeling we might be reasoning from different underlyin= g assumptions, but I don't think you can separate value that way. Those= fundamental properties were chosen to serve the goal of creating a digital= commodity money. They are useful only in as much as they serve ends that p= eople value. Consensus, security, censorship resistance are valuable becaus= e they are desirable properties for money to have.

If you want to argue that the properties of bitcoin are valuable for other= things besides money, that's fine, but those other uses presumably can= be accomplished with tiny amounts of bitcoin, so don't appreciably inc= rease demand.
=C2=A0
These values are
critically reliant on Bitcoin's *degree of decentralization* for them to remain true and for Bitcoin to retain its meaning, and, therefore,
its value. That is what I point out when I say "greater adoption has not reflected in the price chart". And that may remain the case for evermore because the value is in the protocol, the blockchain and its
utility and degree of decentralization, not in the chart or the size
of the user base

I think it depends on = what you mean by "adoption". Adoption as a store-of-value must ne= cessarily increase the market price given the restricted and eventually fix= ed supply. If we're talking about merchant adoption as a payment system= , or increased transaction volume, the yes, these things have no direct imp= act on the price. They only impact the price indirectly in as much as they = encourage further adoption as a store-of-value.
=C2=A0
I argue that we already know what the value of Bitcoin is. In its
current form Bitcoin most likely fulfills 80% or 90% of its eventual
fully evolved value. Increased adoption will not strengthen the
fundamentals, so let's proceed with scaling that will safeguard
Bitcoin's fundamental value and implement protections that ensure
quality of decentralization.

Increased = adoption does strengthen the fundamentals. The most important fundamental f= or money is how many other people standardize on the same money, and want t= o hold it. This drives it's price in terms of other commodities. You wa= nt to hold what everyone else wants to hold.

Aaron Voisine
co-founder and CEO
breadwallet.com
--001a1144d25490316a05199a34cd--