intentionally throttling the network to collect more fees is like strangling the golden goose to get more eggs.
Or like jumping out of a certain wooden sculpture when the walls of Troy first come into view?
Our like trying to charge money for an infinite resource?
Bip 101 timescale:
Year. Size. Reward. blockchain size (rough estimate)
2016 8MB. 12.5. 40GB
2020 32MB 6.25. 3.4TB
2024. 128MB 3.125. 16.8TB
2028. 512MB 1.5625. 70.56TB
2032 2048MB 0.78125. 285.6TB
2036 8192MB 0.390625. 1145TB
How many individuals do you think will be incentivized to store more than a petabyte of data with no compensation? The good news is that Gavin's plan is preposterous and will never gain traction, so fortunately there's nothing to worry about.
2036 is in 21 years. How big was a hard drive 21 years ago? (hint: a tiny fraction of the storage on my current 3 year old phone). Storage is so cheap now that if you include cloud storage like dropbox, it's free.
This is the same fallacy the Malthusians made about mass starvation with population doubling every forty years. Didn't happen. All famines today are political, including ours.
some people have no foresight
Indeed. http://royal.pingdom.com/2010/02/18/amazing-facts-and-figures-about-the-evolution-of-hard-disk-drives/
To sum it up: price per GB from 1980 to 2010 : 300.000 USD to few cents (less than 1 USD). Max HDD space on average home user HDD went from : 2.520 MBs to 2.000.000 MBs. (an almost 800x increase on a single HDD in an average home PC!).
Yes, but my FLAC collection has already replaced my crappy MP3 collection and fits easily on a <1TB HDD.
Also my gazillion high res photo collection doesn't give a fuck about storage space.
There is no incentive for me to buy larger HDD's because I'm already drowing in free space unlike 10 years ago.
Lossless bitcoin compression (lightning network) is the way forward.
Converting MP3 to WAV is like increasing the blocksize and pretending it's better.
Just sharing some information on lighting so we can consider the cons and be better informed:
Quote
Lightning is centralized by design. It's something like a centralized ledger that is capable of pushing out finalized transaction states to the real ledger at anytime.
Drawbacks:
- It screws with the UTXO set, because you can't tell where the money actually is in the system
- It's 100% centralized and could be prone to regulation. I've seen them talk about this and they say if the centralized node starts to whitelist addresses or something to that effect, they'll just start another one.
- It's incredibly complicated and will be prone to errors for the first year or two
- It's not really that useful if you're paying different people with every transaction you do. It's more useful for subscriptions or companies that are paying each other all of the time.
Drawbacks:
- It screws with the UTXO set, because you can't tell where the money actually is in the system
- It's 100% centralized and could be prone to regulation. I've seen them talk about this and they say if the centralized node starts to whitelist addresses or something to that effect, they'll just start another one.
- It's incredibly complicated and will be prone to errors for the first year or two
- It's not really that useful if you're paying different people with every transaction you do. It's more useful for subscriptions or companies that are paying each other all of the time.
Quote
Lightning brings in the following
1) Centralization
2) trusting third parties
3) possible exploits.
In such a system, people are more motivated to find ways to create false tokens/cheat the system than they are to work by the rules. It basically throws out all the meticulous work that goes into ensuring consensus in favour of trusting someone to have your best interests in mind. Such a system is a design failure from the word go and has no place in a world directed by cryptography and trustless systems. One wrong move and we can have a couple of billion "bitcoins" introduced into the system with no way to verify which one is authentic and which is not.
1) Centralization
2) trusting third parties
3) possible exploits.
In such a system, people are more motivated to find ways to create false tokens/cheat the system than they are to work by the rules. It basically throws out all the meticulous work that goes into ensuring consensus in favour of trusting someone to have your best interests in mind. Such a system is a design failure from the word go and has no place in a world directed by cryptography and trustless systems. One wrong move and we can have a couple of billion "bitcoins" introduced into the system with no way to verify which one is authentic and which is not.
Quote
The so-called “Lightning network” that is being pushed as an alternative to Satoshi’s design does not exist. The paper describing it was only published earlier this year. If implemented, it would represent a vast departure from the Bitcoin we all know and love. To pick just one difference amongst many, Bitcoin addresses wouldn’t work. What they’d be replaced with has not been worked out (because nobody knows). There are many other surprising gotchas, which I published an article about. It’s deeply unclear that whatever is finally produced would be better than the Bitcoin we have now.
Here is the article from Mike Hearn on the subject:
https://medium.com/@octskyward/the-capacity-cliff-586d1bf7715e