I should add that a strategy of “let’s avoid fee pressure as much as possible. let’s avoid even thinking about how we’ll transition as much as possible.” strikes me as at least a tad bit myopic.
- Eric Lombrozo > On Jun 26, 2015, at 7:18 PM, Eric Lombrozo <elombr...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I’ve been pondering this whole scale issue considerably…and am left with the > conclusion that blockchains are ultimately dispute resolution mechanisms. The > vast majority of crypto negotiation will be taking place at levels lesser > than global consensus in the future - global consensus is just far too > expensive to require for every single cappuccino. There really is little need > to take most cases globally…unless the participants disagree. I’ve commented > in other places that blockchains are essentially a “fix” to the prisoner’s > dilemma - they make cooperation the equilibrium strategy. > > Regardless of whatever linear factor we scale the blockchain by, it is simple > math to see that any exponential growth (even if for a short time) in usage > will overwhelm the current network. If we ever intend to take bitcoin > mainstream, we will most likely experience at least a short time of > exponential growth…at least until we either reach an inherent limitation or > until we saturate. As Pieter said earlier, FAPP right now the demand for > payments might as well be infinite. We’re nowhere near the ability to service > it all. > > The block size issue is really a usability issue at this point. There are two > fundamental things we need to solve: > > 1) There’s no model for how we’ll introduce a fee market, even though the > design of Bitcoin fundamentally depends on fees for its survival (at least in > the current form of the design.) > > 2) There’s no mechanism for how to perform fee bidding and estimation. Most > wallets simply have no way to do this without serious usability problems. > > > > If we’re going to talk about block fees, let’s keep it in the context of > these relevant issues and not confound it with the scalability issue…these > are two very different issues. > > > - Eric Lombrozo > > >> On Jun 26, 2015, at 1:44 PM, Owen Gunden <ogun...@phauna.org> wrote: >> >> On 06/26/2015 02:23 PM, Jeff Garzik wrote: >>> Failure to plan now for a hard fork increase 6(?) months in the future >>> produces that lumpy, unpredictable market behavior. >>> >>> The market has baked in the years-long behavior of low fees. From the >>> market PoV, inaction does lead to precisely that, a sudden change over >>> the span of a few months. >> >> Which market participants are you referring to? >> >> I entered the bitcoin market with open eyes, aware that it faces hard >> scalability challenges by design. I was also aware that because of these >> challenges, eventually transaction fees would have to rise. >> >> Nevertheless, I made the decision to invest because of the utility I gain >> from the anti-censorship, privacy, control, store of value, and security >> aspects of bitcoin -- many of which stem from decentralization, which others >> have demonstrated to be linked to the block size. >> >> On the other hand, there are undoubtedly other market participants who heard >> hype about "zero fee transactions to anywhere in the world", believed it >> would scale, and made (mal)investments as a result. >> >> As for how many market participants of each flavor, and how deep their >> respective pockets, who knows? My experience in markets has lead me to >> realize that it's never wise to assume I know what "the market" does and >> doesn't know. If Jeff Garzik is right about what the market has priced in, >> then yes, filled blocks will be rocking the boat. But who's to say that the >> smartest, biggest investors and traders don't already see this scaling >> problem, and have already priced it in? In this case, a sudden large >> increase in the block size is actually rocking the boat. The point is, you >> can't know either way, so trying to pre-empt the market in this way is >> erroneous. >> >> Regarding entrepreneurial investment specifically, why should we favor the >> entrepreneurs who require a more centralized bitcoin over those who were >> more considerate of the possibility of rising transaction fees when making >> their business models? >> >> In my mind, we should favor neither, which is why I'm basically in agreement >> with Pieter that this sense of "emergency" shouldn't really be a part of the >> debate. >> >> Not that I'm taking a stand on the specific block size issue either way. I >> just think this particular line of reasoning (presupposing what information >> the market has and has not already baked in) is unsound. >> _______________________________________________ >> bitcoin-dev mailing list >> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org >> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev >
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
