Sure, most people probably would be happy with cheaper off-chain systems. There already are and will probably continue to be more transactions happening off-chain partly for this very reason. That's not the issue we're trying to address though: The main chain is the lynch-pin to the whole system. We've got to do a good job meeting demand that people have for wanting to utilize the main-chain, or else we'll risk being replaced by some other main-chain solution that does it better. On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 4:34 PM, Adam Back wrote: > So if they dont care about decentralisation, they'll be happy using > cheaper off-chain systems, right? > > Adam > > On 11 August 2015 at 22:30, Angel Leon 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, they just want to send money from > A to > > B, like email. > > > > http://twitter.com/gubatron > > > > On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 5:23 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. > >> > >> Adam > >> > >> > >> On 11 August 2015 at 22:18, Michael Naber via bitcoin-dev > >> wrote: > >> > 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 > >> > transact. If that characteristic is no longer true, then Bitcoin isn't > >> > going > >> > to grow, and in fact Bitcoin itself will be replaced by better money > >> > that is > >> > less expensive to transfer. > >> > > >> > So the importance of this issue cannot be overstated -- it's compete > or > >> > die > >> > for Bitcoin -- because people want to transact with global consensus > at > >> > high > >> > volume, and because technology exists to service that want, then it's > >> > going > >> > to be met. This is basic rules of demand and supply. I don't > necessarily > >> > disagree with your position on only wanting to support uncontroversial > >> > commits, but I think it's important to get consensus on the > criticality > >> > of > >> > the block size issue: do you agree, disagree, or not take a side, and > >> > why? > >> > > >> > > >> > On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 2:51 PM, Pieter Wuille < > pieter.wuille@gmail.com> > >> > wrote: > >> >> > >> >> On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 9:37 PM, Michael Naber via bitcoin-dev > >> >> 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 could not even if we wanted to, since competition > >> >>> will > >> >>> deliver capacity for global consensus whether it's in Bitcoin or in > >> >>> some > >> >>> other product / fork. > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> The question is not what the technology can deliver. The question is > >> >> what > >> >> price we're willing to pay for that. It is not a boolean "at this > size, > >> >> things break, and below it, they work". A small constant factor > >> >> increase > >> >> will unlikely break anything in the short term, but it will come with > >> >> higher > >> >> centralization pressure of various forms. There is discussion about > >> >> whether > >> >> these centralization pressures are significant, but citing that it's > >> >> artificially constrained under the limit is IMHO a misrepresentation. > >> >> It is > >> >> constrained to aim for a certain balance between utility and risk, > and > >> >> neither extreme is interesting, while possibly still "working". > >> >> > >> >> Consensus rules are what keeps the system together. You can't simply > >> >> switch to new rules on your own, because the rest of the system will > >> >> end up > >> >> ignoring you. These rules are there for a reason. You and I may agree > >> >> about > >> >> whether the 21M limit is necessary, and disagree about whether we > need > >> >> a > >> >> block size limit, but we should be extremely careful with change. My > >> >> position as Bitcoin Core developer is that we should merge consensus > >> >> changes > >> >> only when they are uncontroversial. Even when you believe a more > >> >> invasive > >> >> change is worth it, others may disagree, and the risk from > disagreement > >> >> is > >> >> likely larger than the effect of a small block size increase by > itself: > >> >> the > >> >> risk that suddenly every transaction can be spent twice (once on each > >> >> side > >> >> of the fork), the very thing that the block chain was designed to > >> >> prevent. > >> >> > >> >> My personal opinion is that we should aim to do a block size increase > >> >> for > >> >> the right reasons. I don't think fear of rising fees or unreliability > >> >> should > >> >> be an issue: if fees are being paid, it means someone is willing to > pay > >> >> them. If people are doing transactions despite being unreliable, > there > >> >> must > >> >> be a use for them. That may mean that some use cases don't fit > anymore, > >> >> but > >> >> that is already the case. > >> >> > >> >> -- > >> >> Pieter > >> >> > >> > > >> > > >> > _______________________________________________ > >> > bitcoin-dev mailing list > >> > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > >> > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > >> > > >> _______________________________________________ > >> bitcoin-dev mailing list > >> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > >> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > > > > >