From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1YuAox-0001FG-J7 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 18 May 2015 02:30:23 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.213.170 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.213.170; envelope-from=mtyljensen@gmail.com; helo=mail-ig0-f170.google.com; Received: from mail-ig0-f170.google.com ([209.85.213.170]) by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1YuAow-0003bG-Ql for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 18 May 2015 02:30:23 +0000 Received: by igbhj9 with SMTP id hj9so1673998igb.1 for ; Sun, 17 May 2015 19:30:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.107.18.93 with SMTP id a90mr7965620ioj.84.1431916217526; Sun, 17 May 2015 19:30:17 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.64.41.229 with HTTP; Sun, 17 May 2015 19:29:57 -0700 (PDT) From: Michael Jensen Date: Mon, 18 May 2015 10:29:57 +0800 Message-ID: To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for sender-domain 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (mtyljensen[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature X-Headers-End: 1YuAow-0003bG-Ql Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Long-term mining incentives X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 May 2015 02:30:23 -0000 I think the basic reality is that a) an arbitrarily elevated level of hashing is fundamental to a truly decentralised, autonomous network, and is an essential cost to maintaining Bitcoin, b) there are no signs that this fact will change, c) there must be some replacement to the current system of incentivisation through debasement (inflation). Arguments about limiting block size versus setting minimum fees are confused because ultimately both mechanisms should ideally achieve the same outcome: a market price for transactions which means that a) not everyone who would make a TX if TXs were unpriced does so (reduced number of TXs) and b) the market price is used to fund hashing. This is just the nature of prices, it always reduces effective demand, but without prices supply must collapse and the market must fail. Regardless, if every time the network gets close to reaching the block size limit the development community gets scared and raises the limit, then such a limit will never be an effective tool for setting a market price. Personally I think trying to artificially limit supply to create a price for transactions is a needlessly complicated way of trying to achieve this goal. I think minimum fees for transactions is a better, simpler option. I would go a step further and say that the development community will struggle forever if it tries to play the role of the centralised economic planner in setting prices for network services. The community should look at more dynamic ways to let network users express their preferences for security and their willingness to pay for it. I've written on the issue - https://medium.com/@mike0/securing-bitcoin-5-determing-an-optimal-funding-level-9873fa1322a7 As far as the argument that fees will drive people away from Bitcoin, I can't believe that. Everything we desire has to be paid for somehow. People will accept a fee for making Bitcoin transactions if Bitcoin as a result is a stable, useful service. Bitcoin as both a currency and as a transaction network has strong network effects, so, ignoring sidechains, it's highly unrealistic that a mandatory fee will drive people away from Bitcoin when the alternatives are dubious knock-offs with no network effect, and fiat, which is even worse in regards to the hidden and malignant costs it exacts.