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 4E80589F for ; Fri, 31 Mar 2017 01:39:26 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-qk0-f172.google.com (mail-qk0-f172.google.com [209.85.220.172]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D845F1BD for ; Fri, 31 Mar 2017 01:39:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-qk0-f172.google.com with SMTP id d10so55863200qke.1 for ; Thu, 30 Mar 2017 18:39:25 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=zc+6UiGEHEW/2JraYYFg9UCfEHdvSnOm5QkOqOoxaIg=; b=RfvR6j4+93w2Cxmv71pFFUZKu+6fe738CnvO0cmAxElKVvXo2yEfzQPLEnb9R/1XjL EtK8WOZ5gZme79Tm4pfM31f7wIXsIuYjbN3tO/yzX98uKYcUCqoLNBuhPJ8/T9qzITXD fBjMqkcfotH0+chd2wnSnQ1o7yax4Ltuv76CEoBVSSrLGTazPmHhx9Tl+iwPyIwmQ+Pn zKWiNIzTvwwMwEV9+NmrlV12fy8VYWstF2E86P17vUiceG+/pglHeQN9Uv14VFicUQYL DVI+Y3TmTeod/WCBcWcwVSKkV716xz1sB3XvHW15EuiJQbfWWZ8LqBEjxeW+DYsCSGyE 3SYA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=zc+6UiGEHEW/2JraYYFg9UCfEHdvSnOm5QkOqOoxaIg=; b=sso25XXFZ3HliYu7U8eexSOWNxJY6Qc3TUUVlauxawYfh5WxlVMMT7q9Gh1YV22+uU fNnavsnC42yQ7tlw8mZ+i78zOqB5Tj0oNx6I7yfkUlOpQh8QTIeX1olIMAqjTLLFqccy +zxEfgO5sgASyg3qviOMdmlO8CFXTAhOQaEXgdECBW6WIFnybO9DXh7vnuDpj0yKVKp8 XoB/A/MWne8OkHohBOblFb3GZ3Qx/Z/GZa+Mj4udx8cLAlVwLGTs12Xptllmh1xF4YL8 fPeVq0IUadYJhzgSV07vJz5Ct5ibdZipANGlSsyX0eef9+aSQzeWetU9p+IGzTsZo79M O5BQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H16grhZBGPDB3pmnmMBqWdi2ft7K74Mg5oL980RPVZu8UXLeFfCL++JWb+oSLlSmA== X-Received: by 10.55.107.196 with SMTP id g187mr412990qkc.77.1490924365107; Thu, 30 Mar 2017 18:39:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPv6:2600:1017:b413:cc8c:e857:a211:e579:3166? ([2600:1017:b413:cc8c:e857:a211:e579:3166]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id j100sm2596953qkh.38.2017.03.30.18.39.24 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 30 Mar 2017 18:39:24 -0700 (PDT) From: Vladimir Zaytsev Message-Id: <61B9AE0D-5A58-4A72-8834-8ED164ED627F@gmail.com> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_3B4D3B64-25C4-4853-987F-41A3BA0081A4" Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.2 \(3259\)) Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2017 21:39:23 -0400 In-Reply-To: To: Jared Lee Richardson , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion References: X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3259) X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, HTML_MESSAGE, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM autolearn=no version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 31 Mar 2017 01:56:35 +0000 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] High fees / centralization X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2017 01:39:26 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_3B4D3B64-25C4-4853-987F-41A3BA0081A4 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 There must be a way to organize =E2=80=9Cbranches=E2=80=9D 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=E2=80=99s just too early to record every sight=E2=80=A6.= > On Mar 30, 2017, at 5:52 PM, Jared Lee Richardson via bitcoin-dev = wrote: >=20 > > Further, we are very far from the point (in my appraisal) where fees = are high enough to block home users from using the network. >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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. >=20 > > We should not throw away the core innovation of monetary sovereignty = in pursuit of supporting 0.1% of the world's daily transactions. >=20 > If we can easily have both, why not have both? >=20 > An altcoin with both will take Bitcoin's monetary sovereignty crown by = default. No crown, no usecases, no Bitcoin. >=20 >=20 --Apple-Mail=_3B4D3B64-25C4-4853-987F-41A3BA0081A4 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
There must be a way to organize = =E2=80=9Cbranches=E2=80=9D 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=E2=80=99s just too = early to record every sight=E2=80=A6.



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.



= --Apple-Mail=_3B4D3B64-25C4-4853-987F-41A3BA0081A4--