{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1azvhdrf9fu6n0tm7yez4j6zcxcedp2ct6nrcq3z74naqs7kgpk8s5t2krq","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1azvhdrf9fu6n0tm7yez4j6zcxcedp2ct6nrcq3z74naqs7kgpk8s5t2krq","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2015-07-23\n📝 Original message:Are you referring to mining contracts?\n\n\u003e On Jul 23, 2015, at 5:32 PM, Eric Lombrozo \u003celombrozo at gmail.com\u003e wrote:\n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e\u003e On Jul 23, 2015, at 5:22 PM, Jean-Paul Kogelman \u003cjeanpaulkogelman at me.com\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\u003e \n\u003e\u003e You are not going to get a fair fee market if your only form of enforcement is the threat of exclusion.\n\u003e\u003e \n\u003e\u003e A more fair fee market will develop if miners start offering quality of service, preferably at multiple tiers. At that point any interference from a block size cap will only be detrimental. In fact it will only highlight what the cap is actually for; to prevent monster blocks.\n\u003e\u003e \n\u003e\u003e Add better QoS tools for miners and extend the cap (when possible) and there's your fee market.\n\u003e\u003e \n\u003e\u003e jp\n\u003e \n\u003e Not sure what you mean by QoS here. Either your transaction is included or it isn’t. It’s not like you can upgrade to a master suite with a view or anything.\n\n-------------- next part --------------\nA non-text attachment was scrubbed...\nName: signature.asc\nType: application/pgp-signature\nSize: 842 bytes\nDesc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150723/e5292776/attachment.sig\u003e"}