-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Apologies in advance for pulling you up on your statement, Tom, I've noticed you're a regular and well respected poster in this list:
"free market" who? Are you aware that the Bitcoin rally of 2013 was a result of speculation by elements in Citi Bank, JPMorgan, and by many other Wall Street trading desk managers who saw the opportunity of a free-floating, unregulated commodity? If the intention is to leave Bitcoin to the "free market" it already is, and has been there for some time. As for miners, those are finance capitalist interest too - if not currently, in their majority, then eventually in China and the rest of the world, so what does the term "free market" really mean? It must be defined, because you are speaking to developers here, not visionary economists or politicized brains, necessarily. We cannot speak about "the market" without referencing concerns about centralization, because any centralized business that plays the game right seeks, by the rules, to corner the market. If they cannot do it alone, they will seek allies. "Free market" means as much under capitalism as "open democracy" under Stalinism. Do you see my point? "Free Market" is a multivariate term and Bitcoin does not (and should not have to) cater to all its demands. That's like applying Microsoft standards to FOSS efforts - becuase that's the "business use-case". Bitcoin developers have to think about economy in an informed manner and make provision with protection, else one can just make like Mike Hearn and jump up and down shouting "faster-faster more-more". Economics, markets and speculation is more complicated than that. Venzen On 06/26/2015 10:38 PM, Tom Harding wrote: > On 6/26/2015 7:09 AM, Pieter Wuille wrote: >> Furthermore, systems that compete with Bitcoin in this space >> already offer orders of magnitude more capacity than we can >> reasonably achieve with any blockchain technology at this point. > > "Reasonably achievable" is a guideline that would keep bitcoin out > of trouble caused by either too little, or too much, declared > capacity. This matches Gavin's thinking, though you may differ on > the numbers. > > >> it seems silly to make a huge increase at once... > > Unless it is reasonably achievable. Leave the rest to the free > market. > > > > _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing > list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJVjXw4AAoJEGwAhlQc8H1mX2kIAJCLodhsEhkzxkzZl1hUITkZ fFZWuiKomsHTHU+6cCr0snt0VDI7+mP8SgyawWrwXNKdGKqpiUAX+B454I9POYBQ pf/CUq/sWMFN/WRO1EYpVBz3zH/mDgMUZeLvnGYti05+3YzxJxBsy2cmkX5HCfUL oUErqWEo+OjeQNT+ZgFSbYYLSBLO2fDJglPzXD4eTF6RrK3AsZpHgnVqQzlAC+4G Q7zRQN/h3voXJ5ed684Hy8bb04KKsEo0EYx2Nz6Hd9mGkSnnqydIa8ieJO3ChYyi IDyJVXpDOth0TshZARbTFuicYg0ULUmU/l5x38Z3HFp9J1G4GFhnoivBwRozlQ8= =a+o4 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
