Quote from: BldSwtTrs on January 18, 2016, 08:54:52 PM

Quote from: AlexGR on January 18, 2016, 08:40:34 PM

Quote from: BldSwtTrs on January 18, 2016, 08:19:30 PM

Do you even realize that the long term outcome of Lightning (the Holy Graal of Core folks) would be to massively reduce the amount of transaction fees versus an on-chain scaling?

Wait, what?

Core is simultaneously accused that they want "higher fees" or "fee competition" and now accused for "wanting to massively reduce fees with lightning".

Please decide what core wants.

Core people are clueless about economics. They doesn't understand the consequences of their wishes.

Maybe you are able to think for yourself and see what they don't see. What is the long term outcome which produces the more transaction fees: on chain scaling or off chain scaling (e.g. Lightning)?

This. They think scarcity alone will bring value (price appreciation) if it is done decentralized. Oblivious to the fact that without the utility of being a p2p payment system with very broad (read: millions can use it simultaneously) access (read: low fees, not no fees!), on the network itself brings most part of the value, not scarcity - we want to use it for trade, so because it is secure (decentralization is part of security, not utility), through this utility it gains economic value, therefore continuing securing it brings income, competitive mining occurs, security rises, we trust it even more etc.. This is a self reinforcing scenario, IF, and only if we keep in mind, that the end is to have a value exchange network, not a digital collectible, without economic action. This is what free market money after all, the value is given only by how much economic activity it makes possible (money trade>> barter trade), aka it's utility, not by the physical properties themselves - those are just features, enforcing the "mass illusion"!

Once again, let me stress it:
For economic purposes, it does not really that important to have this security model, the consensus mechanism (longest chain rules all) is only there to skip the need for trusted parties, hence making value exchange smoother and cheaper - by reducing transaction and maintenance costs (and by accident making it permisionless, and voluntary!).
Network decentralization is a feature, to reach value exchange without 3rd parties, not an end in itself. The point is:

" A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online
payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a
financial institution"

Core people might forgot this, but PoW mining, decentralization, OS, and p2p are only means to that end: a trustless payment system.