Benjamin [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2015-10-27 📝 Original message: >> But I think it's ...
📅 Original date posted:2015-10-27
📝 Original message:
>> But I think it's actually a tractable question, so we can probably actually
work out numbers!
The whole point of a market would be that you get users to work out "the
numbers". If Bitcoin would have a market then capacity would be set by its
use and more demand would trigger supply, and vice versa. Fixing that in
code is inevitably going to lead to bad results. So these discussions about
blocksize and capacity went fundamentally going in the wrong direction.
There is no sensible algorithm to determining prices of anything without
using the input of people in the market. Its not really clear Bitcoin could
build in a mechanism to handle that.
It would be advantageous if fees would be variable by transaction size.
Bitcoin should handle large nominal volumes and low transaction volumes and
a possible second layer handle low nominal values and high transaction
volumes. So it's good to consider BTC amount transferred per bytes. The
higher that number the better for Bitcoin's capacity.
On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 10:38 AM, Pierre <pm+lists at acinq.fr> wrote:
> Hello aj,
>
> This is very interesting, thanks!
>
> You seem to be considering that bitcoin tx and lightning tx are completely
> independent, which is not entirely true because of anchor transactions.
> While this is certainly a valid assumption, maybe it would be worth stating
> it explicitely ?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Pierre
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lightning-dev mailing list
> Lightning-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lightning-dev
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/attachments/20151027/e19ca702/attachment-0001.html>;
📝 Original message:
>> But I think it's actually a tractable question, so we can probably actually
work out numbers!
The whole point of a market would be that you get users to work out "the
numbers". If Bitcoin would have a market then capacity would be set by its
use and more demand would trigger supply, and vice versa. Fixing that in
code is inevitably going to lead to bad results. So these discussions about
blocksize and capacity went fundamentally going in the wrong direction.
There is no sensible algorithm to determining prices of anything without
using the input of people in the market. Its not really clear Bitcoin could
build in a mechanism to handle that.
It would be advantageous if fees would be variable by transaction size.
Bitcoin should handle large nominal volumes and low transaction volumes and
a possible second layer handle low nominal values and high transaction
volumes. So it's good to consider BTC amount transferred per bytes. The
higher that number the better for Bitcoin's capacity.
On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 10:38 AM, Pierre <pm+lists at acinq.fr> wrote:
> Hello aj,
>
> This is very interesting, thanks!
>
> You seem to be considering that bitcoin tx and lightning tx are completely
> independent, which is not entirely true because of anchor transactions.
> While this is certainly a valid assumption, maybe it would be worth stating
> it explicitely ?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Pierre
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lightning-dev mailing list
> Lightning-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lightning-dev
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/attachments/20151027/e19ca702/attachment-0001.html>;