{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1f2nvlx49er5c7sqa43src6ssyp6snd4qwvtkwm5avc2l84cs84esecrwet","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1f2nvlx49er5c7sqa43src6ssyp6snd4qwvtkwm5avc2l84cs84esecrwet","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2015-05-10\n📝 Original message:On Sun, May 10, 2015 at 9:21 PM, Gavin Andresen \u003cgavinandresen at gmail.com\u003e wrote:\n\u003e a while I think any algorithm that ties difficulty to block size is just a\n\u003e complicated way of dictating minimum fees.\n\nThats not the long term effect or the motivation-- what you're seeing\nis that the subsidy gets in the way here.  Consider how the procedure\nbehaves with subsidy being negligible compared to fees.   What it\naccomplishes in that case is that it incentivizes increasing the size\nuntil the marginal \"value\" to miners of the transaction-data being\nleft out is not enormously smaller than the \"value\" of the data in the\nblock on average.  Value in quotes because it's blind to the \"fees\"\nthe transaction claims.\n\nWith a large subsidy, the marginal value of the first byte in the\nblock is HUGE; and so that pushes up the average-- and creates the\n\"base fee effect\" that you're looking at.  It's not that anyone is\npicking a fee there, it's that someone picked the subsidy there.  :)\nAs the subsidy goes down the only thing fees are relative to is fees.\n\nAn earlier version of the proposal took subsidy out of the picture\ncompletely by increasing it linearly with the increased difficulty;\nbut that creates additional complexity both to implement and to\nexplain to people (e.g. that the setup doesn't change the supply of\ncoins); ... I suppose without it that starting disadvantage parameter\n(the offset that reduces the size if you're indifferent) needs to be\nmuch smaller, unfortunately."}