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 17D5CB2B for ; Thu, 21 Dec 2017 22:44:34 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-vk0-f50.google.com (mail-vk0-f50.google.com [209.85.213.50]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 56B5E411 for ; Thu, 21 Dec 2017 22:44:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-vk0-f50.google.com with SMTP id g69so13139458vkg.0 for ; Thu, 21 Dec 2017 14:44:33 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to; bh=U+QHwvi5C1ebkOc2IuSmP1XJ4MSK6p25BVHexYOsE/c=; b=Q8s7fmDDU8hIB/vRW4BW99DsrNNcJ9GIpfpaNEaVfZXYxnuBbdqR+2wB55HSAsYFxi RbqSBmi1cLhfYJGhe5kVmIMKG5FjhlXrO5pykPhKGQmXs4NiSSC2fURSoQ+owgOGiW9/ DlEQF5OzaG7PYPDsMe0U3FOyiZPgM+3bdlpBOlDsidMoDGoB+ggZ4ZtyD0dRlgWknMce yrLoMgRUi7nv9m5JXxTqrA5mUFP/Dn4eEE/ZIFFUBLh6s4ewcuSb5zPHSefSRt21ttAv HL5aTfdKV25LsyGIAte8ykKfAm2io2APU8mNRKcDmc8SAsrnpljHEQc1rR2EVLNxQvaY ZSyA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to; bh=U+QHwvi5C1ebkOc2IuSmP1XJ4MSK6p25BVHexYOsE/c=; b=nEecfr5rw67Fn6E43BZfGo3hxw47JDF7cFBsaolLaDsW/PnKlWZ2hGqW65rnBSwlyh rvHEdV4Id579E7oPQYGaXFcNKb0+LME0ETscxP+75WWhLKvf/oOebw4IULRV4sZxrsbg 2lqFtpLaZaVH9khG7n9VuUCZjmKBouttW8+Y/D0qGzpUi2zsiy/1+26oEAkjK137Eo9A zLFaXU/GWWlVReOgsHnPY4ZvScnkpKerfPQMmiS17lLDpnKYxTDmlZY0i9xb6XRpeklG xcp/0ooqPh7LaVrUevp9fRVywt/tFBF/hJwxZtGd61FR7NAf/xQJc+RP8+AqBHrRlXyh cmXA== X-Gm-Message-State: AKGB3mKExckn3AylmYM1wWQFv06dy5bLpelQo08y57RAZ4ihDNphGZF8 Xu+jhOx/8e8rO1iGFiXeip265k211P6xLTVPJbQ= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBotpGzPOl3k69BSUz3wq+M/VtWBnRLUt6Qvv3FPRIf4P9a2PpClPpHM5gaOWCeP+qyp2mGMcGpYI/Q8MDjYRRSo= X-Received: by 10.31.5.66 with SMTP id 63mr12112674vkf.15.1513896272394; Thu, 21 Dec 2017 14:44:32 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: gmaxwell@gmail.com Received: by 10.103.85.148 with HTTP; Thu, 21 Dec 2017 14:44:32 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: From: Gregory Maxwell Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2017 22:44:32 +0000 X-Google-Sender-Auth: RiphlnH-cuSs3pYMJD83csTI4Z8 Message-ID: To: Melvin Carvalho , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,URIBL_RED 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] Total fees have almost crossed the block reward 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: Thu, 21 Dec 2017 22:44:34 -0000 Personally, I'm pulling out the champaign that market behaviour is indeed producing activity levels that can pay for security without inflation, and also producing fee paying backlogs needed to stabilize consensus progress as the subsidy declines. I'd also personally prefer to pay lower fees-- current levels even challenge my old comparison with wire transfer costs-- but we should look most strongly at difficult to forge market signals rather than just claims-- segwit usage gives us a pretty good indicator since most users would get a 50-70% fee reduction without even considering the second order effects from increased capacity. As Jameson Lopp notes, more can be done for education though-- perhaps that market signal isn't efficient yet. But we should get it there. But even independently of segwit we can also look at other inefficient transaction styles: uncompressed keys, unconfirmed chaining instead of send many batching, fee overpayment, etc... and the message there is similar. I've also seen some evidence that a portion of the current high rate congestion is contrived traffic. To the extent that it's true there also should be some relief there soon as the funding for that runs out, in addition to expected traffic patterns, difficulty changes, etc. On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 9:30 PM, Melvin Carvalho via bitcoin-dev wrote: > I asked adam back at hcpp how the block chain would be secured in the long > term, once the reward goes away. The base idea has always been that fees > would replace the block reward. > > At that time fees were approximately 10% of the block reward, but have now > reached 45%, with 50% potentially being crossed soon > > https://fork.lol/reward/feepct > > While this bodes well for the long term security of the coin, I think there > is some legitimate concern that the fee per tx is prohibitive for some use > cases, at this point in the adoption curve. > > Observations of segwit adoption show around 10% at this point > > http://segwit.party/charts/ > > Watching the mempool shows that the congestion is at a peak, though it's > quite possible this will come down over the long weekend. I wonder if this > is of concern to some. > > https://dedi.jochen-hoenicke.de/queue/more/#24h > > I thought these data points may be of interest and are mainly FYI. Though > if further discussion is deemed appropriate, it would be interesting to hear > thoughts. > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev >