Amir Taaki [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: š Original date posted:2012-06-15 š Original message:> less expensive. This is ...
š
Original date posted:2012-06-15
š Original message:> less expensive. This is no more "real" or less "artificial" then an
> imposed licensing fee or the like and it is not subject to market
> forces.
Sure, the market is not always efficient nor desirable. This seems more like a social question though about choice and information. I do strongly feel that users should have more control over their technology, and a say in how Bitcoin operates. It is our job to present the choices and inform them to make good decisions. If we think how to implement this with a social component of the users operating the network rather than hard and fast rules, I think that's the preferrable way.
Part of the problem is that Satoshi didn't totally anticipate the growth of the network. The block reward (the subsidy) is too high, which is why transactions can afford to be so cheap. What would happen if blocks required a cumulative fee of XN BTC for N transactions before being accepted?
----- Original Message -----
From: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com>
To: Amir Taaki <zgenjix at yahoo.com>
Cc:
Sent: Friday, June 15, 2012 8:43 PM
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Near-term scalability
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 2:38 PM, Amir Taaki <zgenjix at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Forcing users to switch addresses per received payment to work around a bad fee system would be a braindead decision. You might love software and playing with web plugins, but not everyone does. Artists like Rap News can right now simply throw up an address and begin accepting donations. That's a hugely powerful and impactful selling point for Bitcoin.
And that use case does not need fast confirmations!
This is making the point.
>there are no artificial barriers to entry beyond the base cost. This network would always be competitive and strictly operate based on market dynamics.
The users of bitcoin can collectively choose how expensive operating a
full node is by accepting validation rules that allow it to be more or
less expensive. This is no more "real" or less "artificial" then an
imposed licensing fee or the like and it is not subject to market
forces.
š Original message:> less expensive. This is no more "real" or less "artificial" then an
> imposed licensing fee or the like and it is not subject to market
> forces.
Sure, the market is not always efficient nor desirable. This seems more like a social question though about choice and information. I do strongly feel that users should have more control over their technology, and a say in how Bitcoin operates. It is our job to present the choices and inform them to make good decisions. If we think how to implement this with a social component of the users operating the network rather than hard and fast rules, I think that's the preferrable way.
Part of the problem is that Satoshi didn't totally anticipate the growth of the network. The block reward (the subsidy) is too high, which is why transactions can afford to be so cheap. What would happen if blocks required a cumulative fee of XN BTC for N transactions before being accepted?
----- Original Message -----
From: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com>
To: Amir Taaki <zgenjix at yahoo.com>
Cc:
Sent: Friday, June 15, 2012 8:43 PM
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Near-term scalability
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 2:38 PM, Amir Taaki <zgenjix at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Forcing users to switch addresses per received payment to work around a bad fee system would be a braindead decision. You might love software and playing with web plugins, but not everyone does. Artists like Rap News can right now simply throw up an address and begin accepting donations. That's a hugely powerful and impactful selling point for Bitcoin.
And that use case does not need fast confirmations!
This is making the point.
>there are no artificial barriers to entry beyond the base cost. This network would always be competitive and strictly operate based on market dynamics.
The users of bitcoin can collectively choose how expensive operating a
full node is by accepting validation rules that allow it to be more or
less expensive. This is no more "real" or less "artificial" then an
imposed licensing fee or the like and it is not subject to market
forces.