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 5355F9B for ; Thu, 30 Jul 2015 13:14:21 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-pd0-f175.google.com (mail-pd0-f175.google.com [209.85.192.175]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AFEC0EB for ; Thu, 30 Jul 2015 13:14:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: by pdbnt7 with SMTP id nt7so24571245pdb.0 for ; Thu, 30 Jul 2015 06:14:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=2dy71dl/xggsRG7WkYCu+wSss6AisIT5hrUOi1Qyt1w=; b=mv5cYsLGRw3QBL/pPZL/suAh4vClrAiQF2b1DJpQkIRBtMsx8rQ88UnRsmzhPPe6Yq T7PyLQsI+4vZ9QldCzndK5cKT+watO40VzIhs3ST8VqsxThxNueyjNDLH1erQXuD7ajM woRooK9GlylwOGQI+Cwq6peOjd6TfJYauvkFFtY2mxqvTxra026NRCqFyovE/ImjxzS/ 5ht+bkmNC129gnC17FcV7Wk5UI4xnOjKag3Ts4QCtwxPAvFozoMw7UkZlvudWYgvH4jv xz+gOvBFIYYdIKg4QJEili1E+XPs9qlDBqeZGbU88myWOdvkYFv96VmD928DRNgo638d FR5Q== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlUvNUCzl7J/0nOa53yOm55whsnhe4pgon6lUgegdNZcUQEK52g+BQPceLTnqMyGgkSmcOO X-Received: by 10.70.102.209 with SMTP id fq17mr107637680pdb.77.1438262060365; Thu, 30 Jul 2015 06:14:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.89] (99-8-65-117.lightspeed.davlca.sbcglobal.net. [99.8.65.117]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id un2sm2224979pac.28.2015.07.30.06.14.17 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 30 Jul 2015 06:14:18 -0700 (PDT) To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org References: <543015348.4948849.1438178962054.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> <55B959A2.9020402@sky-ip.org> From: Tom Harding X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110 Message-ID: <55BA2329.1080700@thinlink.com> Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 06:14:17 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] =?utf-8?q?R=C4=83spuns=3A_Personal_opinion_on_the_f?= =?utf-8?q?ee_market_from_a_worried_local_trader?= X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 13:14:21 -0000 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" > 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. >