public inbox for bitcoindev@googlegroups.com
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Tom Harding <tomh@thinlink.com>
To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Răspuns: Personal opinion on the fee market from a worried local trader
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 06:14:17 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <55BA2329.1080700@thinlink.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAF_2MyXhhZyHSekOR0uTKndt8onEHqTJGnZwWFXoHw6xngidPA@mail.gmail.com>

On 7/29/2015 9:48 PM, Ryan Butler via bitcoin-dev wrote:
>
> I shouldn't have said unlimited, i should have said a greater
> blocksize limit such as 8mb. 
>
> Anyways, why is that the assumption?  If a miner can do so, and do so
> profitably, isn't that just competition?  Isn't that what we want?  If
> a miner can mine low transaction fees at a profit then don't they
> deserve to have their spot?  Surely if they do so unprofitably they
> quickly find themselves out of business?  Besides, if a miner mines
> low fee transactions by breaking rank, how does this affect another
> miner EXCEPT for the additional blocksize load.  I would maintain this
> is just competition amongst miners gentlemen.  And it's a good thing.
>
> Right now things are distorted because most income comes from the
> coinbase, but as transaction fees start to constitute the majority of
> income this idea seems to have more importance.
>

You're completely correct Ryan.

There has been a well functioning fee market since 2011.  Average fees
have never been zero, despite low-fee transactions being mined, and
despite no block size pressure until September 2014.

Another empirical fact also needs explaining.  Why have average fees *as
measured in BTC* risen during the times of highest public interest in
bitcoin?  This happened without block size pressure, and it is not an
exchange rate effect -- these are raw BTC fees:

https://blockchain.info/charts/transaction-fees?timespan=all&daysAverageString=7

... more evidence that conclusively refutes the conjecture that a
production quota is necessary for a "functioning fee market."  A
production quota merely pushes up fees.  We have a functioning market,
and so far, it shows that wider bitcoin usage is even more effective
than a quota at pushing up fees.


> On Jul 29, 2015 11:00 PM, "Adam Back" <adam@cypherspace.org
> <mailto:adam@cypherspace.org>> wrote:
>
>
>     The assumption is that wont work because any miner can break ranks and
>     do so profitably, so to expect otherwise is to expect oligopoly
>     behaviour which is the sort of antithesis of a decentralised mining
>     system.  It's in fact a similar argument as to why decentralisation of
>     mining provides policy neutrality: some miner somewhere with some
>     hashrate will process your transaction even if some other miners are
>     by policy deciding not to mine it.  It is also similar reason why free
>     transactions are processed today - policies vary and this is good for
>     ensuring many types of transaction get processed.
>



  reply	other threads:[~2015-07-30 13:14 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
     [not found] <CADZB0_ZgDMhVgCUh2PTAPDL7k_W8QGt_HLYdkwv_qQ5xEMn8HA@mail.gmail.com>
2015-07-29 14:09 ` [bitcoin-dev] Răspuns: Personal opinion on the fee market from a worried local trader Vali Zero
2015-07-29 17:47   ` Raystonn .
2015-07-29 22:54     ` s7r
2015-07-30  3:41       ` Ryan Butler
2015-07-30  4:00         ` Adam Back
2015-07-30  4:05           ` Adam Back
2015-07-30  4:48           ` Ryan Butler
2015-07-30 13:14             ` Tom Harding [this message]
2015-07-30 14:25               ` Dave Hudson
2015-07-30 14:57                 ` Tom Harding
2015-07-30 18:14               ` Jorge Timón
2015-07-30 18:16                 ` Jorge Timón
2015-07-30 20:53                 ` Tom Harding
2015-07-31  1:21                   ` Jorge Timón
2015-07-31  1:29                     ` Jorge Timón
2015-07-31  9:56                     ` Thomas Zander
2015-07-31 12:32                       ` Oleg Andreev
2015-07-31 15:24                         ` Jorge Timón
2015-07-30 12:45           ` Ivan Brightly
2015-07-30  4:07         ` Jean-Paul Kogelman
2015-07-30  9:52       ` odinn

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=55BA2329.1080700@thinlink.com \
    --to=tomh@thinlink.com \
    --cc=bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox