Can there be a minimum amount to put up for mining ? I hope i’m not in violation with any ideology yet :)
> On Mar 30, 2017, at 10:01 PM, Jared Lee Richardson <[email protected]> wrote: > > That would be blockchain sharding. > > Would be amazing if someone could figure out how to do it trustlessly. So > far I'm not convinced it is possible to resolve the conflicts between the > shards and commit transactions between shards. > > On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 6:39 PM, Vladimir Zaytsev <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > There must be a way to organize “branches” of smaller activity to join main > tree after they grow. Outsider a bit, I see going circles here, but not > everything must be accepted in the chain. Good idea as it is, it’s just too > early to record every sight…. > > > >> On Mar 30, 2017, at 5:52 PM, Jared Lee Richardson via bitcoin-dev >> <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> > Further, we are very far from the point (in my appraisal) where fees are >> > high enough to block home users from using the network. >> >> This depends entirely on the usecase entirely. Most likely even without a >> blocksize increase, home purchases will be large enough to fit on the >> blocksize in the forseeable future. Microtransactions(<$0.25) on the other >> hand aren't viable no matter what we try to do - There's just too much data. >> >> Most likely, transaction fees above $1 per tx will become unappealing for >> many consumers, and above $10 is likely to be niche-level. It is hard to >> say with any certainty, but average credit card fees give us some >> indications to work with - $1.2 on a $30 transaction, though paid by the >> business and not the consumer. >> >> Without blocksize increases, fees higher than $1/tx are basically >> inevitable, most likely before 2020. Running a node only costs $10/month if >> that. If we were going to favor node operational costs that highly in the >> weighting, we'd better have a pretty solid justification with mathematical >> models or examples. >> >> > We should not throw away the core innovation of monetary sovereignty in >> > pursuit of supporting 0.1% of the world's daily transactions. >> >> If we can easily have both, why not have both? >> >> An altcoin with both will take Bitcoin's monetary sovereignty crown by >> default. No crown, no usecases, no Bitcoin. >> >> > >
_______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
