1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
|
Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <zgenjix@yahoo.com>) id 1Sfbbh-0001jH-TF
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Fri, 15 Jun 2012 18:50:53 +0000
X-ACL-Warn:
Received: from nm6-vm3.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com ([98.138.91.136])
by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with smtp (Exim 4.76)
id 1Sfbbg-0002bT-VO for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Fri, 15 Jun 2012 18:50:53 +0000
Received: from [98.138.90.53] by nm6.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP;
15 Jun 2012 18:50:47 -0000
Received: from [98.138.226.168] by tm6.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP;
15 Jun 2012 18:50:47 -0000
Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1069.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP;
15 Jun 2012 18:50:47 -0000
X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3
X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 377461.24220.bm@omp1069.mail.ne1.yahoo.com
Received: (qmail 80260 invoked by uid 60001); 15 Jun 2012 18:50:47 -0000
X-YMail-OSG: uoaHSnEVM1nRJXm5QnrdVX2jj3n_1GC5KGoRcJkNqS6sQwN
aJJ2zLKJM2ONAJ43mLz8bXyinjfwyKFQSPw6AeKkooW7ZOXpIbMFAnUHaP_i
SO52RIK494uX7WIc1ly.ntfCbE8bL0fvPMPEY5GTYRCj174csQl3GkaihdwF
JmLmFbP8R.Nsr6yhYNq5.4iIIF7gEDcylFgNcRi44u7RUsX.sO6VjAXMopxX
og.YHfqfmR9XTnrJqrJQLCmjCptNXH3NQ736BlMg4OxgsJeYTlIeogtfv.31
r6KaaiLWHs6E84fiqGqH1DmzltVSYHbpN4_FNstSQ7jisOr0iAR8ZgXIrp9a
28Pu_zJM6XXxdTseUQl3AzK8zJda2zhQX6lQ.XzE8g07cnHBVq.zbFUDlTj.
_A5EqGcEinh2eIdnMTWxEPA--
Received: from [213.129.230.10] by web121006.mail.ne1.yahoo.com via HTTP;
Fri, 15 Jun 2012 11:50:47 PDT
X-Mailer: YahooMailWebService/0.8.118.349524
References: <CANEZrP3w+AiTXmv9Wb3Zi5yyFmGPk82-ysVo4_DVvtg8HHBCdQ@mail.gmail.com>
<4FDB6946.2020400@justmoon.de>
<CAErK2CgODFY7HMC-WZRAmts-6eOE074Tz4nX5Nr6EvB8o-QWJA@mail.gmail.com>
<1339785500.74108.YahooMailNeo@web121006.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
<CAAS2fgSVbYFkkhP_0Ny5ULB-DJKN-3hZLkqWukrGL80-UenMwQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1339786247.64852.YahooMailNeo@web121006.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 11:50:47 -0700 (PDT)
From: Amir Taaki <zgenjix@yahoo.com>
To: "bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net"
<bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
In-Reply-To: <CAAS2fgSVbYFkkhP_0Ny5ULB-DJKN-3hZLkqWukrGL80-UenMwQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Spam-Score: -0.1 (/)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
-0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/,
no trust [98.138.91.136 listed in list.dnswl.org]
0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
(zgenjix[at]yahoo.com)
-0.0 T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay
domain
-0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from
author's domain
0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature,
not necessarily valid
-0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
0.0 FSL_FREEMAIL_2 FSL_FREEMAIL_2
0.0 FSL_FREEMAIL_1 FSL_FREEMAIL_1
X-Headers-End: 1Sfbbg-0002bT-VO
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Near-term scalability
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Amir Taaki <zgenjix@yahoo.com>
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 18:50:54 -0000
> less expensive. This is no more "real" or less "artificial" then an
> imposed licensing fee or the like and it is not subject to market
> forces.
Sure, the market is not always efficient nor desirable. This seems more like a social question though about choice and information. I do strongly feel that users should have more control over their technology, and a say in how Bitcoin operates. It is our job to present the choices and inform them to make good decisions. If we think how to implement this with a social component of the users operating the network rather than hard and fast rules, I think that's the preferrable way.
Part of the problem is that Satoshi didn't totally anticipate the growth of the network. The block reward (the subsidy) is too high, which is why transactions can afford to be so cheap. What would happen if blocks required a cumulative fee of XN BTC for N transactions before being accepted?
----- Original Message -----
From: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
To: Amir Taaki <zgenjix@yahoo.com>
Cc:
Sent: Friday, June 15, 2012 8:43 PM
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Near-term scalability
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 2:38 PM, Amir Taaki <zgenjix@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Forcing users to switch addresses per received payment to work around a bad fee system would be a braindead decision. You might love software and playing with web plugins, but not everyone does. Artists like Rap News can right now simply throw up an address and begin accepting donations. That's a hugely powerful and impactful selling point for Bitcoin.
And that use case does not need fast confirmations!
This is making the point.
>there are no artificial barriers to entry beyond the base cost. This network would always be competitive and strictly operate based on market dynamics.
The users of bitcoin can collectively choose how expensive operating a
full node is by accepting validation rules that allow it to be more or
less expensive. This is no more "real" or less "artificial" then an
imposed licensing fee or the like and it is not subject to market
forces.
|
