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 19517112D for ; Tue, 1 Sep 2015 02:30:46 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-oi0-f54.google.com (mail-oi0-f54.google.com [209.85.218.54]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6DB31187 for ; Tue, 1 Sep 2015 02:30:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: by oigk185 with SMTP id k185so70114760oig.2 for ; Mon, 31 Aug 2015 19:30:44 -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 :cc:content-type; bh=NLZ/L9SgNg74I3iGTvG3cH1ZXoXT7A9pBrNOdWtcfng=; b=gfxAfbX8sLs3IMU4kmEIQ7EnUy4ylHv3qJgh6GGYH8bJBousBH8bIoNOktivF4q7D+ dvpCloFqxMeiFjdYU4+N4XtYaHaK7yBz2R7mLABgbrg2tzOFOKsFV85o9w4Jt9oD6vIY uI+4qF6mh65+SRPNt3vp+oaOKSBHgoGgVEXI3va2SQKBNzmRwLa7RAIw6jrNwSzsGOs6 7/2M1lxCGGFeZn0R6IZNd8w979vCkVHv94dzzCjdAwSUYjqbvaGIikGDz2FNVUsiHpka 5vgjtOlEgaVhGx5MRF+uv00wFPqJpd7ZkFxMaO7+moaTh8jM09YkWhzdYARq+UIn4Q+K UZ4A== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.202.224.130 with SMTP id x124mr14774040oig.110.1441074644842; Mon, 31 Aug 2015 19:30:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.76.57.195 with HTTP; Mon, 31 Aug 2015 19:30:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.76.57.195 with HTTP; Mon, 31 Aug 2015 19:30:44 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <5CC48639-11D0-4682-BF82-443286C8E58D@gmx.com> Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2015 22:30:44 -0400 Message-ID: From: Oliver Petruzel To: Adam Ritter Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113d376a4cfe35051ea6564d X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,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 Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Your Gmaxwell exchange 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, 01 Sep 2015 02:30:46 -0000 --001a113d376a4cfe35051ea6564d Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 >>>I would be OK with $100 transaction fee Unless you're relying upon some hypothetical hyper-inflation of the USD, how does one accept or justify such fees given the title (and intentions) of Satoshi's own white paper and corresponding software? I believe the key words "cash system" must be kept in mind throughout all of these discussions and developments, or else we risk turning Bitcoin into something other than cash. Bitcoin will no longer be a P2P cash system if the fees make transactions prohibitively expensive for all but the wealthiest of individuals and corporations. I understand that a careful balance must be struck between (measurable?) decentralization and Bitcoin's use as an actual cash system; however, those who are willing to annihilate the latter to maintain ONLY the former must at least be honest with everyone that they really don't care if Bitcoin becomes something entirely different than Satoshi's original invention and intention. Call it a necessary transformation or reinvention, and by a new name, if you will; because, with exorbitant fees, it may no longer be accurate or appropriate to call it Bitcoin: A Peer-to-peer Electronic CASH System. Respectfully, Oliver On Aug 30, 2015 2:38 AM, "Adam Ritter via bitcoin-dev" < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > I don't really see any problem with the paper: > All it states is that having the assumption that miners don't > centralize, transaction fees don't go to zero even without the > blocksize limit. I think we can accept this as a nice academic > research, and I believe that it's true. > Still, it doesn't have anything that is practical for me as an user of > the Bitcoin network (I use it for storing long-term purchase value, as > most of the people who I know): it doesn't help me if I still need to > pay transaction fees after the blocksize limit is gone. My (and other > users') main concern is about centralization, which has nothing to do > with transaction fees. I would be OK with $100 transaction fee as > well, as long as the network is fair and secure (which comes from > decentralization). > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > --001a113d376a4cfe35051ea6564d Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

>>>I would be OK with $100 transaction fee

Unless you're relying upon some hypothetical hyper-infla= tion of the USD, how does one accept or justify such fees given the title (= and intentions) of Satoshi's own white paper and corresponding software= ?

I believe the key words "cash system" must be kept= in mind throughout all of these discussions and developments, or else we r= isk turning Bitcoin into something other than cash.

Bitcoin will no longer be a P2P cash system if the fees make= transactions prohibitively expensive for all but the wealthiest of individ= uals and corporations.

I understand that a careful balance must be struck between (= measurable?) decentralization and Bitcoin's use as an actual cash syste= m; however, those who are willing to annihilate the latter to maintain ONLY= the former must at least be honest with everyone that they really don'= t care if Bitcoin becomes something entirely different than Satoshi's o= riginal invention and intention.

Call it a necessary transformation or reinvention, and by a = new name, if you will; because, with exorbitant fees, it may no longer be a= ccurate or appropriate to call it Bitcoin: A Peer-to-peer Electronic CASH S= ystem.

Respectfully,
Oliver

On Aug 30, 2015 2:38 AM, "Adam Ritter via b= itcoin-dev" <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
I don't really see any problem with= the paper:
All it states is that having the assumption that miners don't
centralize, transaction fees don't go to zero even without the
blocksize limit. I think we can accept this as a nice academic
research, and I believe that it's true.
Still, it doesn't have anything that is practical for me as an user of<= br> the Bitcoin network (I use it for storing long-term purchase value, as
most of the people who I know): it doesn't help me if I still need to pay transaction fees after the blocksize limit is gone. My (and other
users') main concern is about centralization, which has nothing to do with transaction fees. I would be OK with $100 transaction fee as
well, as long as the network is fair and secure (which comes from
decentralization).
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.= linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail= man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
--001a113d376a4cfe35051ea6564d--