Quote from: Holliday on November 07, 2015, 06:45:10 AM

Quote from: JorgeStolfi on November 07, 2015, 05:01:51 AM

That is the stated Blocksrteam/small-blockian view: bitcoin should be used only for large-value settlements between institutions, like the Lightning network hubs

As a small-blockian myself, I can say the above is not my view.

Bitcoin should be used primarily for transactions where capital controls or other forms of monetary censorship exist.

The amount of data required to keep the Bitcoin network functioning should remain small enough that it is difficult to censor, especially considering it is needed most in places where censorship exists.

Quote from: JorgeStolfi on November 07, 2015, 05:01:51 AM

-- not for ordinary e-purchases by ordinary citizens.

This, however, is my view. There is simply no reason to use censorship-proof money for ordinary purchases. It's a terrible waste of resources for starters. A decentralized system has no reason to compete with centralized systems. They each do different things well. Using Bitcoin to buy goods from Amazon is like using a chainsaw to mow your lawn. Yeah, a chainsaw will certainly cut grass, but there are much better tools for the job.

That is a sensible view, and close to what bitcoin was conceived and built for.

However, Satoshi's stated goal was to remove the need for a trusted third party in peer-to-peer payments. That is not the same as "censorship resistant" and does not imply it. It does not imply anonymity or privacy, much less immunity from laws. These goals that were tacked onto it afterwards, by others; it is not surprising that bitcoin fails to

With that caveat, I could almost say that that is my view too: bitcoin should not be used for ordinary payments -- person-to-person, e-commerce, remittance, settlement. It should be used only in cases where the absence of a trusted intermediary is necessary or clearly advantageous. But "almost", because I believe that bitcoin's flaws will prevent even that use.

However, this view (in either version) is irrelevant for the community. Neither Blockstream nor the big-blockians will accept it. Both want the price of bitcoin to "go to the moon", which requires massive use. Only that Blockstream wants to start pushing traffic offchain by next year, assuming that the LN will be ready by then; whereas the big-blockians want to keep it on-chain at least for a few more years.

Quote

it's important that any decision to change Bitcoin be considered in this light, and it's imperative not to make changes which move in the opposite direction (such as drastically increasing the amount of data needed to be shared in order to keep the network functioning).

If bitcoin were to evolve in this direction (which practically nobody wants) then one could begin by imposing a significant minimum fee, say 0.25 to 1.00 USD. My guess is that it would cut down traffic by 90%. But neither side wants that, either.

By the way, note that, for this purpose, other altcoins would be almost as good as Bitcoin.