{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1lhe3qfx2q5m7mq5d39waepf9lzhsy0cdey66svn63fyk6rt6n7ps7zg7ed","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1lhe3qfx2q5m7mq5d39waepf9lzhsy0cdey66svn63fyk6rt6n7ps7zg7ed","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2015-08-10\n📝 Original message:On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 12:55 PM, Jorge Timón \u003c\nbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e Gavin, I interpret the absence of response to these questions as a\n\u003e sign that everybody agrees that  there's no other reason to increase\n\u003e the consensus block size other than to avoid minimum market fees from\n\u003e rising (above zero).\n\u003e Feel free to correct that notion at any time by answering the\n\u003e questions yourself.\n\u003e In fact if any other \"big block size advocate\" thinks there's more\n\u003e reason I would like to hear their reasons too.\n\n\nAdditionally, correct me if I am wrong, but the net effect from preventing\nfees rising from zero would be to guarantee miners have no alternative\nincome from fees as block subsidy dries up and thus harm the incentives to\nsecure the chain.\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150810/1476e03a/attachment.html\u003e"}