On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 10:55 AM, Gavin Andresen
wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 11:24 AM, Bryan Bishop via bitcoin-dev <
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
>> Because any decentralized system is going to have high transaction costs
>> and scarcity anyway.
>
>
> This is a meme tha
On Thursday 30. July 2015 11.02.43 Mark Friedenbach wrote:
> It is possible for a decentralized system like bitcoin to scale via
> distribution in a way that introduces minimal trust, for example by
> probabilistic validation and distribution of fraud proofs. However changes
> to bitcoin consensus
They aren't really so closely related as you are implying, since bitcoin is
a trustlessly decentralized system. At present every participant needs to
be able to validate the entire chain in order to be certain that their copy
of the ledger state is correct, and miners need to be able to incremental
On Thursday 30. July 2015 18.07.40 Thomas Zander via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> Remember when we went from single-core CPUs to multi-core (and
> hyperthreading)? Developers were saying it was useless because all apps
> were still single-threaded. And now, 15 years later, there are fantastic
> framewor
On Thursday 30. July 2015 11.55.50 Gavin Andresen wrote:
> What other successful or unsuccessful decentralized systems should we be
> looking at?
Parallel compiling systems (distcc, icecream, teambuilder).
Git vs subversion (or perforce).
Not a joke; googles search. Not from a user perspective,
On Thursday 30. July 2015 10.24.07 Bryan Bishop wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 9:52 AM, Thomas Zander via bitcoin-dev <
>
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > What makes you think that when there is such a low availability of
> > transaction
> > space that paying to be included co
On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 11:24 AM, Bryan Bishop via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> Because any decentralized system is going to have high transaction costs
> and scarcity anyway.
This is a meme that keeps coming up that I think just isn't true.
What other decentral
On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 4:52 PM, Thomas Zander via bitcoin-dev
wrote:
> On Thursday 30. July 2015 11.38.00 Jorge Timón via bitcoin-dev wrote:
>> It is important ro note that even if lightning was never developed, the
>> block size remains at 1 MB forever and fees rise to 10 usd per transaction,
>>
On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 9:52 AM, Thomas Zander via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> What makes you think that when there is such a low availability of
> transaction
> space that paying to be included costs you $10, that Bitcoin is not going
> to
> be outcompeted and re
On Thursday 30. July 2015 11.38.00 Jorge Timón via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> It is important ro note that even if lightning was never developed, the
> block size remains at 1 MB forever and fees rise to 10 usd per transaction,
> such "high fees" are still extremely competitive with non-decentralized
> p
On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 2:29 PM, Gavin via bitcoin-dev
wrote:
> I would like (and have been asking) those people to take the time to quantify
> those costs and write up those risks in a careful way.
I agree that having a "minimal hardware requirements" specification
would greatly help with this
gt; A slow or lack of increase to maximum transaction rate will
>>> cause pressure on fees. Whether this is the desired goal is
>>> not relevant. Everyone has agreed this will be the outcome.
>>> As to a smaller block size being needed for additional
>>> decentraliz
will hold, here:
http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1sn3lqs
>
>
> -Original Message- From: Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev
> Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2015 1:09 PM To: Owen Cc: Bitcoin Dev
> Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Why Satoshi's temporary anti-spam
> measure isn&
cause
> >> pressure on fees. Whether this is the desired goal is not
> >> relevant. Everyone has agreed this will be the outcome. As to a
> >> smaller block size being needed for additional decentralization,
> >> one must simply ask how much we are all willing
nd
>> destroying a less decentralized currency before the benefit of
>> this feature is given monetary value by the market. Until then,
>> value will bleed to the network with the least friction, because
>> it will have the greatest ability to grow its network effect.
&g
. Until then, value will bleed to
> the
> > network with the least friction, because it will have the greatest
> ability
> > to grow its network effect. That means the blockchain with adequate
> > features and cheapest fees will eventually have the largest market share.
>
That means the blockchain with adequate
> features and cheapest fees will eventually have the largest market share.
>
>
> -Original Message----- From: Venzen Khaosan
> Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2015 3:11 PM
> To: Raystonn .
> Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> Subj
ssage-
From: Venzen Khaosan
Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2015 3:11 PM
To: Raystonn .
Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Why Satoshi's temporary anti-spam measure
isn'ttemporary
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Raystonn, I'm aware th
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Raystonn, I'm aware that you're addressing your question to Greg
Maxwell, however a point you keep stating as fact calls for reference:
On 07/30/2015 04:28 AM, Raystonn . via bitcoin-dev wrote:
[snip]
> How do you plan to address the bleeding of value
via bitcoin-dev
Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2015 1:09 PM
To: Owen
Cc: Bitcoin Dev
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Why Satoshi's temporary anti-spam measure
isn'ttemporary
On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 7:56 PM, Owen via bitcoin-dev
wrote:
On July 29, 2015 7:15:49 AM EDT, Mike Hearn via bitcoin-
Eric, any plans to correct your article at
https://bitcoinmagazine.com/21377/settling-block-size-debate/?
From: Mike Hearn via bitcoin-dev
Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2015 4:15 AM
To: Eric Lombrozo
Cc: Bitcoin Dev
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Why Satoshi's temporary anti-spam me
21 matches
Mail list logo
