The only reason why Bitcoin has grown the way it has, and in fact the only
reason why we're all even here on this mailing list talking about this, is
because Bitcoin is growing, since it's better money than other money. One
of the key characteristics toward that is Bitcoin being inexpensive to
On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 11:30 PM, Angel Leon via bitcoin-dev
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org wrote:
tell that to people in poor countries, or even in first world countries.
The competitive thing here is a deal breaker for a lot of people who have
no clue/don't care for decentralization,
Bitcoin would be better money than current money even if it were a bit more
expensive to transact, simply because of its other great characteristics
(trustlessness, limited supply, etc). However... it is not better than
something else sharing all those same characteristics but which is also
less
I dont think Bitcoin being cheaper is the main characteristic of
Bitcoin. I think the interesting thing is trustlessness - being able
to transact without relying on third parties.
Adam
On 11 August 2015 at 22:18, Michael Naber via bitcoin-dev
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org wrote:
The
Re: In my opinion the main source of disagreement is that one: how the
maximum block size limits centralization.
I generally agree with that, but I would add that centralization is only a
goal insofar as it serves things like reliability, transaction integrity,
capacity, and accessibility. More
tell that to people in poor countries, or even in first world countries.
The competitive thing here is a deal breaker for a lot of people who have
no clue/don't care for decentralization, they just want to send money from
A to B, like email.
http://twitter.com/gubatron
On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at
On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 10:34 PM, Thomas Zander via bitcoin-dev
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org wrote:
So, while LN is written, rolled out and tested, we need to respond with
bigger
blocks. 8Mb - 8Gb sounds good to me.
This is where things diverge. It's fine to pick a new limit or
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Hi
(excuse my english; it’s not my native language)
As you might noticed, bitcoin-cores wallet didn’t got that much focus
during the last month (even years?).
Wallet development has mostly moved towards SPV (bitcoinj), thin
clients (Electrum),
Lightning will never catch on as it basically demands that everyone who
uses it to become a speculator. Payment hubs and merchants will be at the
mercy of the bitcoin price while their funds stay locked up in payment
channels. This idea is a dead-end.
On 10 August 2015 at 22:43, Adam Back via
It follows then, that if we make a decision now which destroys that property, which makes it possible to censor bitcoin, to deny service, or to pressure miners into changing rules contrary to user interests, then
On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 11:31 PM, Thomas Zander via bitcoin-dev
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org wrote:
On Monday 10. August 2015 23.03.39 Mark Friedenbach wrote:
This is where things diverge. It's fine to pick a new limit or growth
trajectory. But defend it with data and reasoned
On Monday 10. August 2015 23.03.39 Mark Friedenbach wrote:
So, while LN is written, rolled out and tested, we need to respond with
bigger
blocks. 8Mb - 8Gb sounds good to me.
This is where things diverge. It's fine to pick a new limit or growth
trajectory. But defend it with data and
- policy neutrality.
- It can't be censored.
- it can't be shut down
- and the rules cannot change from underneath you.
except it can be shutdown the minute it actually gets used by its inability
to scale.
what's the point of having all this if nobody can use it?
what's the point of going
Hey Jonas,
I think your analysis of what (some) users need is a good one.
We've discussed this before so I know you prefer your current approach, but
I personally would take a slightly different path to reach the same end:
1. Support serving of SPV wallets from pruned storage. This means
On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 4:33 PM, Mike Hearn via bitcoin-dev
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org wrote:
Hey Jonas,
I think your analysis of what (some) users need is a good one.
We've discussed this before so I know you prefer your current approach,
but I personally would take a slightly
On Tuesday 11. August 2015 00.08.42 Mark Friedenbach wrote:
On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 11:31 PM, Thomas Zander via bitcoin-dev
So why do I work on Bitcoin, [] It can't
be censored, it can't be shut down, and the rules cannot change from
underneath you.
Fully agreed, and I like that a lot as
All things considered, if people want to participate in a global consensus
network, and the technology exist to do it at a lower cost, then is it
sensible or even possible to somehow arbitrarily set the price of
participating in a global consensus network to be expensive? Can someone
please walk
On Aug 11, 2015 8:46 PM, Michael Naber mickey...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Jorge: Many people would like to participate in a global consensus
network -- which is a network where all the participating nodes are aware
of and agree upon every transaction. Constraining Bitcoin capacity below
the limits of
On Aug 11, 2015 8:55 PM, Michael Naber mickey...@gmail.com wrote:
It generally doesn't matter that every node validate your coffee
transaction, and those transactions can and will probably be moved onto
offchain solutions in order to avoid paying the cost of achieving global
consensus. But you
On Aug 11, 2015 9:37 PM, Michael Naber mickey...@gmail.com wrote:
Hitting the limit in and of itself is not necessarily a bad thing. The
question at hand is whether we should constrain that limit below what
technology is capable of delivering. I'm arguing that not only we should
not, but that we
On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 9:37 PM, Michael Naber via bitcoin-dev
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org wrote:
Hitting the limit in and of itself is not necessarily a bad thing. The
question at hand is whether we should constrain that limit below what
technology is capable of delivering. I'm
I think everyone is expending huge effort on design, analysis and
implementation of the lowest cost technology for Bitcoin.
Changing parameters doesnt create progress on scalability fundamentals -
there really is an inherent cost and security / throughput tradeoff to
blockchains. Security is
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hello, I thought these were good points, but I have a couple questions..
.
On 08/11/2015 12:08 AM, Mark Friedenbach via bitcoin-dev wrote:
On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 11:31 PM, Thomas Zander via bitcoin-dev
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
On Tur, Aug 11, 2015 at 07:08 AM, *Mark Friedenbach* via bitcoin-dev
bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
wrote:
Neither one of those assertions is clear. Keep in mind the goal is to have
Bitcoin survive active censorship.
On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 9:28 AM, Pieter Wuille via bitcoin-dev
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org wrote:
On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 5:55 PM, Gavin Andresen gavinandre...@gmail.com
wrote:
I think there are multiple reasons to raise the maximum block size, and
yes, fear of Bad Things Happening
On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 2:51 PM, Pieter Wuille via bitcoin-dev
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org wrote:
On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 11:35 PM, Michael Naber mickey...@gmail.com
wrote:
Bitcoin would be better money than current money even if it were a bit
more expensive to transact, simply
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hey Angel,
On 08/11/2015 02:14 AM, Angel Leon via bitcoin-dev wrote:
-policy neutrality. - It can't be censored. - it can't be shut
down - and the rules cannot change from underneath you.
except it can be shutdown the minute it actually gets
On 8/11/2015 2:23 PM, Adam Back via bitcoin-dev wrote:
I dont think Bitcoin being cheaper is the main characteristic of
Bitcoin. I think the interesting thing is trustlessness - being able
to transact without relying on third parties.
That rules out Lightning Network.
Lightning relies on
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 08/12/2015 10:35 AM, Elliot Olds via bitcoin-dev wrote:
On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 2:51 PM, Pieter Wuille via bitcoin-dev
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org wrote:
On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 11:35
29 matches
Mail list logo
