A $2 coffee or $20 remittance to Africa doesn't belong in the same dataset as billion dollar trans-institutional settlements. If you insist they must cohabitate, Bitcoin will collapse under its own weigh, a hypertrophic dinosaur victim of its own success ready to die in the nearest tar pit or meteor crater.
Yes they do.
Quote
Commerce on the Internet has come to rely almost exclusively on financial institutions serving as
trusted third parties to process electronic payments. While the system works well enough for
most transactions, it still suffers from the inherent weaknesses of the trust based model.
Completely non-reversible transactions are not really possible, since financial institutions cannot
avoid mediating disputes. The cost of mediation increases transaction costs, limiting the
minimum practical transaction size and cutting off the possibility for small casual transactions.
What is needed is an electronic payment system based on cryptographic proof instead of trust,
allowing any two willing parties to transact directly with each other without the need for a trusted
third party.
-Satoshitrusted third parties to process electronic payments. While the system works well enough for
most transactions, it still suffers from the inherent weaknesses of the trust based model.
Completely non-reversible transactions are not really possible, since financial institutions cannot
avoid mediating disputes. The cost of mediation increases transaction costs, limiting the
minimum practical transaction size and cutting off the possibility for small casual transactions.
What is needed is an electronic payment system based on cryptographic proof instead of trust,
allowing any two willing parties to transact directly with each other without the need for a trusted
third party.
https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf
Every single transaction that pays the cost per kB belongs in the blockchain, and the cost per kB should be low enough to make all reasonable transactions feasible. A $2 cup of coffee belongs in the blockchain every bit as much as a $200 payment.
$2 and $200 retail payments don't belong in the same dataset as $2 million/billion commercial settlements. More is different; free riders are a bug, not a feature.
"An electronic payment system based on cryptographic proof instead of trust" refers to blockchain technology in general, not necessarily Bitcoin specifically.
Piling every proof-of-work quorum system in the world into one dataset doesn't scale.
The networks need to have separate fates.
The networks need to have separate fates.
We get it. You don't believe BTC is anti-fragile. You really want to fix Bitcoin until it breaks. You like Gavin's 'Embrace, Extend, Extinguish' attack.
That's fine. But don't expect the rest of us to roll over and make forking Bitcoin into ThirdTempleCoin easy (much less profitable) for the attackers.
