Quote from: Carlton Banks on September 30, 2015, 07:37:49 PM

Quote from: brg444 on September 30, 2015, 07:24:35 PM

Quote from: Carlton Banks on September 30, 2015, 07:16:27 PM

Quote from: brg444 on September 30, 2015, 06:55:32 PM

Quote from: Carlton Banks on September 30, 2015, 06:36:12 PM

Quote from: gentlemand on September 30, 2015, 06:18:37 PM

Quote from: knight22 on September 30, 2015, 05:48:33 PM

Care to give me a single example of high cost luxury open code? Roll Eyes

The 'if you charge a cunting fortune, they will come' theory is a prime example of the laughable unworldliness of some of the folks involved in Bitcoin.

I'm sure they'll enjoy charging the equivalent of $50 to send a few cents to each other. The rest of the world will carry on happily as before or go with a system that's designed to actually accommodate them.

Have to concur with this, bitcoin should not be "luxury", and brg44 is misrepresenting the outlook of the technologies he supports if that's what he really believes.

There's a balance to be struck. We've recognised that those fighting for BIP101 want that because it is unbalanced to one extremity, but any arguments in favour of actual exclusivity is clearly the inverse of the BIP101 misbalance. "Luxury" implies "not enough supply to meet demand", which is not desirable.

The block size cap is precisely to manage the supply in full expectation that all demand can not be met.

You're implying supply = demand - 1 notional unit of demand, and that's doesn't correspond with my idea of a "luxury" service.

What is your idea of a "luxury" service? Mine is one that makes no compromise (in this case security) just to appeal to larger mass of users.

I don't accept that definition, or it's preposition that there exists a tradeoff between bitcoin's network security and it's transaction rate.

Are you genuinely trying to say that the strategy should be to target some factor by which the supplied blockspace should be reduced by in respect of demand? That would be a form of luxury service to me, and if any future overlay payment solutions couldn't take up that slack, then I don't know how competitive that kind of Bitcoin would actually be. I don't support that kind of exclusive/conservative approach any more than the throw-resource-responsiblity-to-the-wind approach of BIP101.

I think we agree that the block size should be a function of the resources requirement for one person to become a peer in the network (fully validate by running a full node).

Therefore it stands to reason that the Bitcoin blockchain will forever be able to accommodate only a marginal amount of transactions worldwide given the resources load implied. Hence the exclusive, "luxury" qualitative.