Re: [bitcoin-dev] High fees / centralization

[Vladimir Zaytsev <vladimir.zaytsev@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1803 bytes --]

There must be a way to organize “branches” of smaller activity to join main tree after they grow. Outsider a bit, I see going circles here, but not everything must be accepted in the chain. Good idea as it is, it’s just too early to record every sight….



> On Mar 30, 2017, at 5:52 PM, Jared Lee Richardson via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> 
> > Further, we are very far from the point (in my appraisal) where fees are high enough to block home users from using the network.
> 
> This depends entirely on the usecase entirely.  Most likely even without a blocksize increase, home purchases will be large enough to fit on the blocksize in the forseeable future.  Microtransactions(<$0.25) on the other hand aren't viable no matter what we try to do - There's just too much data.
> 
> Most likely, transaction fees above $1 per tx will become unappealing for many consumers, and above $10 is likely to be niche-level.  It is hard to say with any certainty, but average credit card fees give us some indications to work with - $1.2 on a $30 transaction, though paid by the business and not the consumer.
> 
> Without blocksize increases, fees higher than $1/tx are basically inevitable, most likely before 2020.  Running a node only costs $10/month if that.  If we were going to favor node operational costs that highly in the weighting, we'd better have a pretty solid justification with mathematical models or examples.
> 
> > We should not throw away the core innovation of monetary sovereignty in pursuit of supporting 0.1% of the world's daily transactions.
> 
> If we can easily have both, why not have both?
> 
> An altcoin with both will take Bitcoin's monetary sovereignty crown by default.  No crown, no usecases, no Bitcoin.
> 
> 


[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2747 bytes --]