Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 03B6325A for ; Fri, 31 Jul 2015 15:27:49 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-la0-f43.google.com (mail-la0-f43.google.com [209.85.215.43]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 21F19161 for ; Fri, 31 Jul 2015 15:27:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: by lacct8 with SMTP id ct8so13225794lac.2 for ; Fri, 31 Jul 2015 08:27:46 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=eD+nDf/AgzvwAYd79wbUruwcV3Bs5k7XgQQOGj2XVXM=; b=rBha8YF7yscffe9p/efFfQW/8Kiyp2tByAVHZ9OTEDlbEH3e/bieXwhbs7RbxVIw/K SrQ3hn/YpGHvn0+jJxFFVTdHhABzrAK0f6RRc2XQLSgVsGQrSpp4bulwP38Qa5od4rQL BwUJbTXJMHmzJ2DxP4BruWJ/G2dAEnYNp/tWUWTho4o84/CQRc4WNxUYq6f0lgtoD+BB 9hBOJ2sYqf5C50Bo2UO23tkzeSZT7mmg/CdwpDQ3y29x9KDpXTMaEyjjsbZkTBCqE7Nr lBjWgHSYArXJRUXLpEUXdpA3snSuhKJGpZLtSNj9MMBNhPqz3mfZmey5l6R18qD9kfNB 9Aag== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.112.142.196 with SMTP id ry4mr3660119lbb.68.1438356466138; Fri, 31 Jul 2015 08:27:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.152.18.166 with HTTP; Fri, 31 Jul 2015 08:27:45 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <1B7F00D3-41AE-44BF-818D-EC4EF279DC11@gmail.com> <55B9EB68.9020703@mail.bihthai.net> <2905605.OvbZMWuhGy@coldstorage> Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2015 10:27:45 -0500 Message-ID: From: Bryan Bishop To: Gavin Andresen , Bryan Bishop Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0112bf7e39883b051c2d76f6 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Why Satoshi's temporary anti-spam measure isn'ttemporary X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2015 15:27:49 -0000 --089e0112bf7e39883b051c2d76f6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 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 that keeps coming up that I think just isn't true. > Specifically I was replying to the argument that went like "the bitcoin system, in any of its futures with a bunch of non-zero transaction fees, is going to be replaced by a decentralized system that can commit to transactions that have lower or zero transaction fees, and which also otherwise provides the same benefits as bitcoin". My reply was that decentralized systems are going to have physical limitations that force their solutions to look certain ways, which would do something like, for example, explain why there were "$10 fees" in that original scenario in the first place. Your reply does not seem to share this context? Also, I don't mean to start a discussion about internet architecture, but ISP peering agreements do not look particularly like a cryptographic, decentralized system to me at all. I agree that the internet needs better architecture. I would call the IETF about this but I think Greg would be the one to answer or something :-). Would be sorta redundant, heh. - Bryan http://heybryan.org/ 1 512 203 0507 --089e0112bf7e39883b051c2d76f6 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On T= hu, Jul 30, 2015 at 10:55 AM, Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.c= om> wrote:
On Thu, Jul 30, 2015= at 11:24 AM, Bryan Bishop via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-de= v@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
Because any decentralized system is going to have high transaction= costs and scarcity anyway.

This is a meme tha= t keeps coming up that I think just isn't true.

Specifically I was replying to the argument that wen= t like "the bitcoin system, in any of its futures with a bunch of non-= zero transaction fees, is going to be replaced by a decentralized system th= at can commit to transactions that have lower or zero transaction fees, and= which also otherwise provides the same benefits as bitcoin". My reply= was that decentralized systems are going to have physical limitations that= force their solutions to look certain ways, which would do something like,= for example, explain why there were "$10 fees" in that original = scenario in the first place. Your reply does not seem to share this context= ?=C2=A0

Also, I don't mean to start a discussion about internet architecture,= but ISP peering agreements do not look particularly like a cryptographic, = decentralized system to me at all. I agree that the internet needs better a= rchitecture. I would call the IETF about this but I think Greg would be the= one to answer or something :-). Would be sorta redundant, heh.

- Bryan
http://heybryan.org/1 512 203 0507
--089e0112bf7e39883b051c2d76f6--