I understand the motivation. I’m upset with high fees too.
However:
+ There is a concept of “induced demand”. It’s like when they add new roads to decrease traffic. It never works for long because people end up moving to the area because of the lower traffic and traffic returns to the original level, or worse.
+ Once we realize high fees will be with us forever, we should realize that we don’t need to rush out a solution to “solve the problem”. We’re not going to actually solve the problem of high fees, except temporarily, and we risk making something worse. We need to be strategic and think long term.
+ In any event, we should NEVER change the protocol in powerful ways where we don’t know how it will be abused. We should limit the scope of new functionality as tightly as possible to reduce the attack surface.
We need to ask ourselves:
1) Can the issue be solved in any other way, other than a change to the core protocol? Have we waited long enough for other solutions to emerge?
2) If we must change the core protocol, what is the most limited change we can make that actually solves the problem?
https://www.wired.com/2014/06/wuwt-traffic-induced-demand/
techfeudalist /
npub1nz3…yxqu
2024-06-06 17:08:30
in reply to nevent1q…usu7
Author Public Key
npub1nz3cd3mx4jf9paxwrdgqvchaprjdge9pj9t58mkusw74q5saajkqu0yxquPublished at
2024-06-06 17:08:30Event JSON
{
"id": "487be223cd03f10cf7d03da66e205dcb69cc55ea2010fecfa80638a561452256",
"pubkey": "98a386c766ac9250f4ce1b500662fd08e4d464a1915743eedc83bd50521decac",
"created_at": 1717686510,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"8cd39a9a3328ccf68af8e6fd7864b04e4e341e398058584152d6c85ebb3e32db",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"867a66fc867c424e1be78d55568476ce491739500b9284ba34555eeac1039e29",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"c7eda660a6bc8270530e82b4a7712acdea2e31dc0a56f8dc955ac009efd97c86"
],
[
"p",
"32e1827635450ebb3c5a7d12c1f8e7b2b514439ac10a67eef3d9fd9c5c68e245"
],
[
"r",
"https://www.wired.com/2014/06/wuwt-traffic-induced-demand/"
]
],
"content": "I understand the motivation. I’m upset with high fees too. \n\nHowever:\n\n+ There is a concept of “induced demand”. It’s like when they add new roads to decrease traffic. It never works for long because people end up moving to the area because of the lower traffic and traffic returns to the original level, or worse. \n\n+ Once we realize high fees will be with us forever, we should realize that we don’t need to rush out a solution to “solve the problem”. We’re not going to actually solve the problem of high fees, except temporarily, and we risk making something worse. We need to be strategic and think long term. \n\n+ In any event, we should NEVER change the protocol in powerful ways where we don’t know how it will be abused. We should limit the scope of new functionality as tightly as possible to reduce the attack surface. \n\nWe need to ask ourselves:\n\n1) Can the issue be solved in any other way, other than a change to the core protocol? Have we waited long enough for other solutions to emerge?\n\n 2) If we must change the core protocol, what is the most limited change we can make that actually solves the problem?\n\nhttps://www.wired.com/2014/06/wuwt-traffic-induced-demand/",
"sig": "1a6015c21d1c19dbecf6e97e4e9d0345f67381545324094e31fb53b267ae7b956114a0b9f24ed99a00a34618b16bea25b9dd2d3fac1ddead7e6ab9836804c964"
}