...
Do you have a better explanation that accounts for the observable fact heavily funded bitcoin companies failed to produce the kinds of spectacular results Silicon Valley expects, even as the value of bitcoin itself continues to climb? Speculating about motivations and fretting about EVIL BLOCKSTREAMCORE doesn't count; your personal status as disgruntled isn't an argument that leads to a falsifiable (ie useful) hypothesis.
...
Very simple. If the maximum transactions per second is capped to somewhere between 2 tps and 7 tps this places a limit on the growth of a Bitcoin company, say for example a payment processor, no matter how much venture capital the company may raise.
Your explanation is not "very simple" as it needlessly multiplies the entities responsible for Bitcoin's secular bull market, despite a more parsimonious theory (fat protocol) being available.
TPS doesn't limit growth of Bitcoin companies unless they are doing it wrong (ie trying to use the blockchain as a replacement for low-latency high-volume centralized services like Visa).
There are presently limits to Bitcoin's TSP, but there is no limit to how valuable those 2-7 tx are. Hence Bitcoin's destiny to become high powered super money used for settlement between institutions which issue their own tokens backed by BTC.
Yes rising fee market pressure excludes marginal cases like SatoshiDice. Oh well; that's called creative destruction.
Honey Badger and I really couldn't care less what "virtually every Bitcoin company is pushing for." Fuck those free riding assholes and (your logical fallacy of) argumentum ad populum as well.
I'm not going to weep for past use cases (and resultant business models) which are no longer viable (or profitable).
The dream of stuffing every Starbucks and Wal-Mart purchase on the Holy Ledger is dead.
That yet-another-retail-payment-rail vision has been thoroughly rubbished, starting here...
...and ending with the definitive repudiation
here.
There’s a permeating sense of entitlement amongst certain Bitcoin entrepreneurs that leads them to try to make the Bitcoin network liable for the profitability of their business models.
Many companies are built on the premise that they can provide competitive financial services by piggybacking off the most open and secure blockchain available. Unfortunately, they often ignore the tradeoffs they chose to make when adopting this solution and too often display an arrogance that is unbecoming from people who owe their entire business to a protocol largely supported by others.
Traditional payment service businesses have stitched themselves on top of Bitcoin in an attempt to externalize their operation costs to the network, irrespective of the fact that the latter is a public good provided by voluntary participants. This dynamic is more commonly known as the free-loader problem
By using their influence to promote design changes that increase the cost of validating nodes through coercion, they are effectively attempting to tax peers in order to continue subsidizing their business models.
If users give up on their ability to coordinate through a fixed block size limit, they invite transaction providers to further increase the load externalized to the network until diversity is lost and validating services become specialized and prohibitive.
For the many reasons explained above, it should be clear to everyone that the current block size limit is hardly artificial. It is, rather, a conscious, voluntary, decision by network participants everywhere to preserve the trust minimization feature of Bitcoin.
