My comment was not based on a study no. To me it seems like common sense. In a massive oversimplification, lets say there are too possibilities for payment channels:
1. Users do not use them for whatever reason and they fail - No impact on on-chain transaction demand
2. Users gain advantages from payment channels and they succeed - Demand for space on the chain increases due to demand to open channels, close channels and settle disputes
Please can you explain your theory as to why payment channel technology would reduce demand for space on the blockchain? I really do not get it. Perhaps it is about diverting developer time from other ideas you may like, but developers need to be free to work on what they want, unless somebody pays them.
@jonny1000 - I appreciate the answer here. IMHO - making an argument based on "common sense" is fine so long as said basis clear, open for discussion, and open to the possibility of being wrong/not exactly correct.
As far as
my theory goes, I don't much have one - at least not regarding payment channel technology vis-a-vis block space demand. Others here would maybe tell you (hopefully?) that I like to try out all kinds of arguments - some of which are sympathetic to a big block size and some not. TBH, I'm more of a student of argument and rhetoric than anything (not IRL . . . anymore, grad school was long ago - now I'm just a lawyer who stumbled onto btc several years back and am still dumbfounded by how cool it is). That said, I deal w/ pro bullshitters all day long and am fairly good at pressing for additional information when people just assert things as fact/truth - can't do that in court, everything has to have a foundation.
Anyway, here's how I think about demand for blockspace and capacity generally (I'll work on editing this post today w/ some citation - Saturday mornings at my house are crazy): in the short-term, demand out-strips supply for block space - this has nothing to do w/ devs, but totally with hype, speculation, and user word-of-mouth. However, there's a real risk of users turning away from BTC in the medium to long-term due to user needs being unfilled, on-chain settlement becoming too expensive and uncertain, and users generally feeling shat-upon by core and co. In short,
guessing that demand for blockspace (and BTC) will continue or increase in the future due to lightening payment channels irresponsibly assumes way too much and is sorta arrogant as fuck - it assumes that people will want to wait around for you - they don't, nobody likes you guys enough at this point to wait around much longer; your motives and competence are now in question - 43 weeks and 6 days ago they were not (this is not necessarily my think, btw - I'm telling you what I see).
Let me elaborate and try and break out some specific thoughts (sorry this is gonna be long and rambly):
-BTC is nothing without its users and speculators.
-BTC has X capacity.
-User demand for block space exceeds X capacity often (i'll call it a "capacity gap" or "CG" for this discussion). Demand seems to be growing at rate faster than capacity (I concede segwit may increase capacity to some degree for some user groups) and the CG seems to be growing.
-BTC has demand because it solves a problem. BTC has value b/c a lot of folks (users and speculators) agree that that it solves a problem. The underlying premise of BTC - and coolest part - is a ledger of truth that rank-orders transactions based on time - just like how real estate records operate in
race-notice jurisdictions and jurisdictions that have adopted Uniform Commercial Code-like laws (I've been writing about this for months here - go back to my December 2015 and Jan 2016 forum posts here, and I'm not the person who posted this same idea on /r/BTC yesterday - others are just now figuring it out on their own/getting vocal about it). RBF brakes the coolest part of bitcoin and goes against long-standing legal doctrine that pervades much of the world by allowing people to cut in line and thereby making settlement time unpredictable and uncertain. Lightning contributes to the breakage as well since onchain settlements are delayed; many transactions will require credit or insurance to mitigate the risk of a transaction not being final or recorded on-chain in time for whatever.
-BTC is open source and the current developers are not the only talented and competent folks out there that can work on cryptocurrency. Current developers are not necessarily the
most talented and most competent folks out there either - they're not rigorous enough for that, many come across as smart amateur scientists more than anything, but they also appear afraid of the professional and rigorous peer review you might see at a university or well-established company. Devs have clearly gone in hiding mode so they don't have to confront and entertain the ideas of other computer scientists, competent professionals, and users. Sad.
-BTC is not the only tech that can solve the problems it was designed to solve. And, the tech doesn't matter that much -
see @DanielKrawisz's latest article.
-Clearly, a lot of experimentation is happening right now w/ other cryptos and blockchains. I suspect some of this is because the CG persists and is growing. Some of it is also because the developer space comes across as unfriendly, ungrateful to the users and speculators (i.e, the customers), unwelcoming and arbitrary ( e.g., you did just admit your projection on block space demand was based on
your common sense, not anything objective).
-The world is a competitive place.
- Given the state of the CG and core's apparent hatred for its customers, my common sense - along w/ professional experience advising a lot of businesses - tells me that the long-term survival of BTC, core, and its supporting companies is far from guaranteed.
People in this space - even regular ole users - are innovators that don't like to watch paint dry - the world is too exciting and moves way too fast for that. They don't like being manipulated and censored; and, they don't like feeling abandoned to developer self-interest. Users don't like having their demand for block space unfulfilled and they don't like network congestion generally, especially when the rationale is based opinion and subjective common sense (who likes sitting in a traffic jam?). Customers won't wait indefinitely - the rate of growth in altcoins and blockchains is some proof of this. Customers don't like being blamed every time they have a problem, question or concern with trying to use bitcoin in internet commerce - the wallet and user material therefor in this regard is rag-tag and lacking; clearly, this is one reason why Hearn was a threat - he was/is a professional with standards that include finishing projects so that they're user friendly (this gave him political power), its also why you guys redefined "community" to be "technical community," whatever that means, for measuring consensus.
Frankly, Core's credibility is sinking by the day and the whole situation has become a soap opera. I'm not a fan of this - it is embarrassing for everyone at this point - but it appears true. The dev decision-making comes across as so arbitrary/not objective/not based on rigorous science, opaque, and at times contradictory, that you guys have fucked yourselves and irreparably damaged your reputations - its sad. Honestly, after the inevitable fork (I don't want the one that's coming, but its coming - the dishonest tactics of some core devs (the dipshits are good example) have most certainly guaranteed it - they tainted all the core devs as liars and manipulators to the point that its too risky to associate w/ you guys now. So, I can see wide user focus soon converging on seeking core's removal and no longer their approval), you all might have problems finding work (you would in a normal industry, I can't see supporting companies like BS surviving over the long-term). I can totally see why folks either see core as incompetent when it comes to economics or business OR has a hidden agenda OR has been coopted. In a way, its comical, sorta like this:
http://www.latimes.com/world/la-fg-french-president-barber-20160714-snap-story.html.
-Decentralization as a goal is great, but its a value judgment. Not everyone shares in that value in the same way/to the same degree, and you guys haven't proven you really value it because lightening and the current state of development seem to create centralization. You guys would benefit everyone by explaining in detail what you think it means/define it, why it is important, what it looks like implemented, and why the proposed plan is the best available way to achieve it before you force it down everyone's throat - you also need to answer the argument that you've made centralization and the continued prospects therefor worse.
gtg for now, but I'm sure you get the idea. Please don't take this as personal as it may appear - I wrote with some color, but mostly I'm parroting back observations. I'm happy to support small blocks IFF the science available in the open source process justifies it - right now, there's not enough evidence to overcome the common sense rationale for increasing capacity by raising block size limit.
