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 A16A7414 for ; Thu, 30 Jul 2015 04:00:44 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mout.perfora.net (mout.perfora.net [74.208.4.194]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4B6EE7C for ; Thu, 30 Jul 2015 04:00:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-qg0-f50.google.com ([209.85.192.50]) by mrelay.perfora.net (mreueus002) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0LZxCl-1Yb83K0YwP-00lq9i for ; Thu, 30 Jul 2015 06:00:43 +0200 Received: by qged69 with SMTP id d69so16837289qge.0 for ; Wed, 29 Jul 2015 21:00:42 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.140.165.5 with SMTP id l5mr2344297qhl.85.1438228842409; Wed, 29 Jul 2015 21:00:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.96.226.68 with HTTP; Wed, 29 Jul 2015 21:00:42 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <543015348.4948849.1438178962054.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> <55B959A2.9020402@sky-ip.org> Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 21:00:42 -0700 Message-ID: From: Adam Back To: Ryan Butler Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:TfCgBCX6UpvFkExZ4mKog86lWjHgCqsqEJj9iemFs+IJDKOnMAB EVUcFbqQTFVmPaXa/ZYb3oGcXfG6GJAHGi/QpE7GFvrjgt+kxvAfvCEGTX65bP1PzS0sMyt jLzYl+fcc0vUedec/5TnUQcFnnMgQnptEA9HMhde2z/lng/nAiO+9d3SDBfCZCmxBd4CQ8W GF7H2q7Pf7C7uInf6W/ZA== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:oWYhRBXPX3E=:8puRHizdg5K+ec0EmkLLfO qbS36Cvn3GvIp28sN21No0B8Y+JDvs36NNK13SQNaYTz4hyFEv54GjmOQ8EmcllYqHVUnSMIt PHSSKtiGBBzPiH1JeQ/qAZEze9toG3RmA4UxcATukJl36j567/AttRaeQGxZlAFgvF0aySFwE M2sBMBMnbVJ8e+eVARtN8egxCaVes0sct4dPF88DjIWWC2kcTAygCXvtM0i+hRLHMSv4p5o1C OIpfbKOG1tM9t8hTPFiglyKWM1MmD2Mpvxt0fCC28G7FWJfrVEu2VpyN+ofwltQaQ/b8D3fJn uVIh/fscIdt0w9MbEA7heaqtSUsasYvlbrxPe/tEomKzIuDXWtGeDzzPKb7+QzErqabQ095sf HZPgx8e/qXXyXr+FfSisI2ZrVvKsxL1Twhk45ewJV5hZMiQdJCac5vKTtznbpvkNSsd1vTvmP qMIQj8/oYX/lgc0q7irrjgaIQLFGabJ0C3ouvwvbNHh4fglOQyZXRZGEmwysugDX175BIAy3x vnXKTBDGlT78BOXeSpnRxpfmeTNsrwuztPkAdiZavoCqnmleT0AOLiMh/KjkGwRAXJAzhOlQf vDNubnpr54UbOTfaWbJK4c/HFH/BNl4g6O8+7sGVyn8SjWl/HB6ISZ0Gb6lPLe3JMGR7Umz72 4E/aGGy17+yCMQFZzHkbi3bOh04JY/zriL/SGafZGGT88Ag== 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 Cc: Bitcoin Dev 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 04:00:44 -0000 On 29 July 2015 at 20:41, Ryan Butler via bitcoin-dev wrote: > Does an unlimited blocksize imply the lack of a fee market? Isn't every > miner able to set their minimum accepted fee or transaction acceptance > algorithm? 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. Adam