Matches for !s, 11744 total results Sorted by newest | relevance
Wed Jan 21 19:24:25 UTC 2015 <Pierre_Rochard> well if he disagrees on the premise that being fort knox is more important than being a rural walmart then there’s not much to discuss
Wed Jan 21 19:16:35 UTC 2015 <Pierre_Rochard> so it’s immaterial, yet that transaction fee revenue is super-important for the customers to know, long term this is a viable enterprise that can sustain itself
Wed Jan 21 19:15:58 UTC 2015 <Pierre_Rochard> gavinandresen: I agree, but in this case I think Bitcoin’s competitive advantage is 100x, and transaction fees are a relatively small part of that, so if they were $0.50 instead of $0.05, adoption rate would decrease by let’s say 0.01%.
Wed Jan 21 19:13:49 UTC 2015 <Pierre_Rochard> gavinandresen: right, that goes back to bitcoin’s adoption relative to other altcoins. when we see a divergence then we know there’s substitution going on
Wed Jan 21 19:12:23 UTC 2015 <Pierre_Rochard> gavinandresen: that’s actually a very interesting question because we currently live in a world where miner liabilities are in fiat prices, but in the future that may not be the case.
Wed Jan 21 19:00:46 UTC 2015 <Pierre_Rochard> gavinandresen: If I understand your argument correctly, you’re saying that the elasticity of demand is so great that fee maximization will be insufficient anyway, so try finding another solution now. That’s a pretty good argument, I think we should see what happens to fee revenue growth to validate it. If, say, the average fee goes up to 0.0004 btc and doesn’t budge from there, but anecdotally we hear that
Wed Jan 21 18:50:53 UTC 2015 <gavinandresen> Pierre_Rochard: if wallets could deal with that I’d be more open to running the experiment, although I still think it is a terrible idea to shut out ANY reasonable use cases at this early stage of Bitocn’s life
Wed Jan 21 18:47:06 UTC 2015 <Pierre_Rochard> gavinandresen: that’s right, that’s the signal to increase the block size limit
Wed Jan 21 18:44:40 UTC 2015 <Pierre_Rochard> gavinandresen: I think Bitcoin’s overall value proposition is so overwhelming that what’s hampering Bitcoin adoption is not tx fees, it’s just the Lindy effect of it being around long enough
Wed Jan 21 18:42:56 UTC 2015 <gavinandresen> Pierre_Rochard: but why would we want to hit the “then substitutes start happening” when we’re in Bitcoin’s infancy?
Wed Jan 21 18:41:16 UTC 2015 <Pierre_Rochard> gavinandresen: fee revenue growth, if it accelerates then demand for btc transactions is relatively inelastic, the point at which it declerates indicates where substitution starts happening. If it’s right away, then you’re right on the economics. If its after a period of faster growth, then we can see what bitcoin transaction fee the market will bear before switching to substitutes
Wed Jan 21 18:38:45 UTC 2015 <Pierre_Rochard> then let’s stay there for six months to collect the data
Wed Jan 21 18:38:38 UTC 2015 <gavinandresen> Pierre_Rochard: the 0.10 release’s wallet code includes floating fees, so over the next couple months we should get a much better idea of what is happening fee-wise.
Wed Jan 21 18:35:25 UTC 2015 <artifexd> !s rsa backdoor
Wed Jan 21 18:32:12 UTC 2015 <gavinandresen> davout: oh, the IBLT stuff? yes, that’d make propagation O(1), and that’s what I mean when I say “when that is fixed by protocol changes"
Wed Jan 21 18:29:28 UTC 2015 <Pierre_Rochard> Now this part may be controversial for some members of b-a, but it’s at the point where fee revenue growth decelerates that the block size should be increased *marginally*, if the goal is to maximize fee revenue
Wed Jan 21 18:26:43 UTC 2015 <Pierre_Rochard> So here’s my hypothesis: if we allow the network to hit the block size limit, then we’ll see the transaction fee revenue growth *accelerate*, up until the point that substitution begins happening in earnest, then the fee revenue growth will *decelerate* or stall.
Wed Jan 21 18:25:02 UTC 2015 <Pierre_Rochard> Second, there is distance between the total transaction costs of Bitcoin vs the substitutes. So there’s inelasticity in demand
Wed Jan 21 16:20:58 UTC 2015 <assbot> 4Chan’s Moot Now Forcing Mods To Sign Legal Contract That Reveals Their Identity ... ( http://bit.ly/1xXpkUH )
Wed Jan 21 14:18:25 UTC 2015 <Vexual> !s 2million