From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1YqaBd-0005Ao-9J for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 08 May 2015 04:46:57 +0000 X-ACL-Warn: Received: from mail-pd0-f178.google.com ([209.85.192.178]) by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1YqaBb-0004Or-4d for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 08 May 2015 04:46:57 +0000 Received: by pdbnk13 with SMTP id nk13so63098178pdb.0 for ; Thu, 07 May 2015 21:46:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=NYlZkS95A2KBEUFsVA8zTNlpBiBu0SHWRFWXfKyIlkQ=; b=a1pgzK/rvF9ZybkPLTZynayzODnqx7+YBhd40BHOu3ALTQLJwxkke56R0FUmcVWG+l MdKRH+1HyR3GR6j4BNfOM6M/Wc1a5Yo0qYXMClWuD7GO9fIjhtd9i5Wt8X3LQTMRY5/Q IOsrnSNyjmXPavvPI1ZtjksGKzsegkB9tjNLWwNHBTSrCQoZfe6ooI/+lbJzW0hUJEhP pjyFPGMgJquhXYAJFSXG1smBOrJifcVoCAaOLiZsf8aq7svYUIuxYtBwCqhljiq9YCxC aGmZgZK6qsQCEJxH7CFqi39ufZ+JSLIxU8Q/vwBa9Hr8UxLc9P5dM4owwBXuHNPkQWJD kE2Q== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlyaKyLUu421tL62aK840e0cnqH//3wBQOzhzvpnpgIt+3SXZ/q+HUiEx5Vvy6ISbWNmhHG X-Received: by 10.70.98.233 with SMTP id el9mr3543489pdb.54.1431060408943; Thu, 07 May 2015 21:46:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.89] (99-8-65-117.lightspeed.davlca.sbcglobal.net. [99.8.65.117]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id pd5sm3692900pbb.25.2015.05.07.21.46.47 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 07 May 2015 21:46:48 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <554C3FB8.6000309@thinlink.com> Date: Thu, 07 May 2015 21:46:48 -0700 From: Tom Harding User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net References: <554A91BE.6060105@bluematt.me> <5049F137-E123-47F6-9D24-FE51B92629FF@hashingit.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. X-Headers-End: 1YqaBb-0004Or-4d Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Block Size Increase X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 08 May 2015 04:46:57 -0000 On 5/7/2015 6:40 AM, Jorge Tim=F3n wrote: >> Known: There's a major problem looming for miners at the next block re= ward >> halving. Many are already in a bad place and without meaningful fees t= hen >> sans a 2x increase in the USD:BTC ratio then many will simply have to = leave >> the network, increasing centralisation risks. There seems to be a fair= ly >> pervasive assumption that the 300-ish MW of power that they currently = use is >> going to pay for itself (ignoring capital and other operating costs). > I take this as an argument for increasing fee competition and thus, > against increasing the block size. > That doesn't follow. Supposing average fees per transaction decrease with block size, total fees / block reach an optimum somewhere. While the optimum might be at infinity, it's certainly not at zero, and it's not at all obvious that the optimum is at a block size lower than 1MB.