From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 18EB5AB2 for ; Sat, 27 Jun 2015 17:59:07 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail.bihthai.net (unknown [5.255.87.165]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 55F0327E for ; Sat, 27 Jun 2015 17:59:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.8.0.6] (unknown [10.8.0.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: venzen) by mail.bihthai.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B0AB9203D6 for ; Sat, 27 Jun 2015 19:59:43 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <558EE463.4020601@mail.bihthai.net> Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2015 00:58:59 +0700 From: Venzen Khaosan Organization: Bihthai Bai Mai User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org References: <1EF70EBC-8BB8-4A93-8591-52B2B0335F6C@petertodd.org> <20150627172011.GB18729@muck> <20150627173724.GA30546@muck> <20150627175428.GA2259@muck> In-Reply-To: <20150627175428.GA2259@muck> OpenPGP: id=1CF07D66; url=pool.sks-keyservers.net Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] A Proposed Compromise to the Block Size Limit X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: venzen@mail.bihthai.net List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2015 17:59:07 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Very interesting point and comparison. So the fee market is unknown, similar to a market maker's orderbook - except in the case of Bitcoin it is not being deliberately hidden from users, its just not knowable how miners are positioning at any given moment. On 06/28/2015 12:54 AM, Peter Todd wrote: > On Sat, Jun 27, 2015 at 07:46:55PM +0200, Benjamin wrote: >> There is no ensured Quality of service, is there? If you "bid" >> higher, then you don't know what you are going to get. Also >> because you have no way of knowing what *others* are bidding. >> Only if you have auctions (increasing increments) you can >> establish a feedback loop to settle demand and supply. And the >> supply side doesn't adapt. Adapting supply would help resolve >> parts of the capacity problem. > > There's lots of markets where there is no assured quality of > service, and where the bids others are making aren't known. Most > financial markets work that way - there's only ever probabalistic > guarantees that for a given amount of money you'll be able to buy a > certain amount of gold at any given time for instance. Similarly > for nearly all commodities the infrastructure required to mine > those commodities has very little room for short, medium, or even > long-term production increases, so whatever the production supply > is at a given time is pretty much fixed. > > > > _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing > list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJVjuRiAAoJEGwAhlQc8H1mjnwIAIiUSPf6agfMXsFgupoihsTV Pr1mJWHdLjrF5QadmdyooivYGPkY+zmfJ+N3fkr8l++PDGh03u0RgALf/gwJSSAQ qSeMmjSZb8ZEkyLlZAGVHT8Ph+lRda65CVxYspKu/54TolqEezOHVaon9uWYVjtB cSd8fWoqJMq05Pz25QPagxFUpXmtFX1KvxUWqeGkRsuqMgeWbCurQKpOhRXu48nH Si73iOIyDUT9i1WsPvlpOi0pSxDlGnkMQKaEyIN5JJfKo1imRAtKVRLZh43rXpSW jeZf8LMRwd49K4vnvHXZ0UbKWhpelh6XJari22citZ7yb5w5iENAcoP/cSGhLaY= =nfF5 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----