On Fri, Jul 14, 2017, at 01:53, Lucas Clemente Vella wrote: > Unless you are trying to argue with me that block size limit should be much > higher, that argument doesn't make much sense, because for some time now > we've reached the cap. That *is* what I am arguing. Sorry if off topic with regards to your question about SegWit, but it explains the position why the block size shouldn't be limited anywhere near the current usage. > And even then, I am not convinced it is not a problem, because is not a > matter of how many transactions a person makes per day, but how many people > are starting to use Bitcoin. The ratio of (current users) / (potential + > current users) is astoundingly high, thus there is much potential growth > beyond the current cap. Socio-economic movements, like Bitcoin adoption, can > be highly non-linear, and very likely exponential, quickly filling up any new > cap imposed. The more people will use bitcoin, the more resources it will take to verify full blocks. Obviously. Luckily this growth curve isn't very scary. To me, one of the key innovations Satoshi brought is the realization that transactions are small and that processing all the world's transactions isn't that daunting. Even back then 8 years ago. Sure, if you talk today about VISA level, you probably still need $20k hardware, but VISA level is not in sight and there is nothing "centralized" about having some hardware requirements for verifying every transaction of the currency of the future. We *can* handle 1/5 of VISA on a modern connection and a laptop with an extra disk. That is not "centralization", it's "decentralization." Tomas
_______________________________________________ bitcoin-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-discuss
