I don't know whether $100/tx would be fine. As a reserve currency it might be fine. As a transactional currency it obviously wouldn't.
I also don't know that $100/tx is a realistic estimate any time soon given that we are now at something like $0.05 to nearly aways get into the next block (and getting into the very next block is not always needed -- for a lower fee you can be still be very confident of getting in the next several blocks).
I also don't know that $100/tx is a realistic estimate any time soon given that we are now at something like $0.05 to nearly aways get into the next block (and getting into the very next block is not always needed -- for a lower fee you can be still be very confident of getting in the next several blocks).
$100 was just pulled out of my ass. but your response illustrates exactly what i was saying the other day. i contend that lukejr and gmax would say the same thing, they don't know that $100/tx would be fine. according to them it could be based on whether they see Bitcoin as a reserve currency or b/c they are financially captured and wish to see their SC's benefit.
pt being, there is no sense waiting for the "last minute" b/c no one will agree what the "last minute" is.
Maybe its worth giving them the benefit of the doubt them. I have zero investment in sidechains, and I don't even think that sidechains even work!
Of course you could claim that I just care about sabotaging Bitcoin because Monero, but you'd be wrong about that too.
Maybe it is possible that people who actually understand the technology just have serious doubts about Gavin's approach of scaling it up the way you scale up a web site?
i'm sure some do but i think it's also true that Bitcoin can never be safe nor become a true currency unless it experiences "wider" adoption. with 1MB, i don't think there is any doubt we get stuck where we are in terms of adoption. i think even the skeptics see this and is why they're "hedging" the argument now by saying they're all in favor of an increase but it's a matter of how much and when. at least from "our" standpoint, that's some progress.
the "wider" adoption is the question. i firmly believe that we should push the tech hard to test it's limits. the further out it spreads to the far ends of the earth, the safer and more successful Bitcoin will be. that would be the ultimate decentralization which no gvt could reverse. we'll never know unless we try. the fall back is we could pull back the block size if we had to.
i don't know man, I kind of feel the opposite, that getting nodes and miners spread out to the corners of the earth is more important to resisting hostile takeover than users. The former is probably helped by keeping the scale of transactions under control, not by increasing it.
if you've been reading my posts recently you'll know i feel that is a fundamental misunderstanding by you devs. you view the full node as the fundamental unit of the system whereas i feel it is the user. my view is supported by phenoms like Uber, AirBnb, Facebook and just about every other successful internet company out there who scrambled to scarf up users as fast as they could before regulations kicked in or before their competitors could react. that way the gvt couldn't very well say no to all their same constituents who voted them in who were also using these new services.
the way i see it, full nodes are similar to ACH or Swift services which is just the plumbing of the system dominated and driven by users.
