Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of
	national.shitposting.agency designates 75.102.27.230 as
	permitted sender) client-ip=75.102.27.230;
	envelope-from=insecurity@national.shitposting.agency;
	helo=mail.cock.li; 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8;
 format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Mon, 11 May 2015 16:52:10 +0000
From: insecurity@national.shitposting.agency
To: thomasv@electrum.org
In-Reply-To: <5550D8BE.6070207@electrum.org>
References: <5550D8BE.6070207@electrum.org>
Message-ID: <ce3d34c92efd1cf57326e4679550944e@national.shitposting.agency>
User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/0.9.5
Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Long-term mining incentives
Precedence: list

On 2015-05-11 16:28, Thomas Voegtlin wrote:
> My problem is that this seems to lacks a vision. If the maximal block
> size is increased only to buy time, or because some people think that 7
> tps is not enough to compete with VISA, then I guess it would be
> healthier to try and develop off-chain infrastructure first, such as 
> the
> Lightning network.

If your end goal is "compete with VISA" you might as well just give up
and go home right now. There's lots of terrible proposals where people
try to demonstrate that so many hundred thousand transactions a second
are possible if we just make the block size 500GB. In the real world
with physical limits, you literally can not verify more than a few
thousand ECDSA signatures a second on a CPU core. The tradeoff taken
in Bitcoin is that the signatures are pretty small, but they are also
slow to verify on any sort of scale. There's no way competing with a
centralised entity using on-chain transactions is even a sane goal.