{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1sa86gng3pvs3jgyt5majwcrhn8ck5qxgy9pjqxkh79u638cd7dys28y304","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1sa86gng3pvs3jgyt5majwcrhn8ck5qxgy9pjqxkh79u638cd7dys28y304","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2015-07-23\n📝 Original message:You are not going to get a fair fee market if your only form of enforcement is the threat of exclusion.\n\nA 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\nAdd better QoS tools for miners and extend the cap (when possible) and there's your fee market.\n\njp\n\n\n\u003e On Jul 24, 2015, at 8:04 AM, Eric Lombrozo via bitcoin-dev \u003cbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e \n\u003e I should also add that I think those who claim that fee pressure will scare away users and break the industry are *seriously* underestimating human ingenuity in the face of a challenge. We can do this - we can overcome this obstacle…we can find good solutions to a fee market. Unless someone can come up with another way to pay for the operation of the network, we NEED to do this. What makes anyone think it will be easier to do later rather than now? The longer we wait, the lower block rewards get, the larger the deployed infrastructure, the larger our userbase, the HARDER it will be to solve it. We should solve it now - we will be much better off for it…and so will our users.\n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e\u003e\u003e On Jul 23, 2015, at 4:57 PM, Eric Lombrozo \u003celombrozo at gmail.com\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\u003e\u003e \n\u003e\u003e\u003e \n\u003e\u003e\u003e On Jul 23, 2015, at 4:42 PM, Benedict Chan \u003cbencxr at fragnetics.com\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\u003e\u003e \n\u003e\u003e\u003e Scaling the network will come in the form of a combination of many\n\u003e\u003e\u003e optimizations. Just because we do not know for sure how to eventually\n\u003e\u003e\u003e serve 7 billion people does not mean we should make decisions on\n\u003e\u003e\u003e global validation that impact our ability to serve the current set of\n\u003e\u003e\u003e users.\n\u003e\u003e \n\u003e\u003e Agreed. But I believe the economic and security arguments I gave regarding fees and incentives still hold and are largely separate from the scalability issue. Please correct me if I overlooked something.\n\u003e\u003e \n\u003e\u003e \n\u003e\u003e\u003e Also, blocking a change because it's \"more important to address issues\n\u003e\u003e\u003e such as...\" other improvements will further slow down the discussion.\n\u003e\u003e\u003e I believe an increase will not prevent the development of other\n\u003e\u003e\u003e improvements that we need - in contrast, the sooner we can get over\n\u003e\u003e\u003e the limit (which, as you agree, needs to be changed at some point),\n\u003e\u003e\u003e the sooner we can get back to work.\n\u003e\u003e \n\u003e\u003e An increase in block size at this time will exacerbate security concerns around nodes relying on other nodes to validate (particularly miners and wallets). It’s not really a matter of having limited developer resources that need to be budgeted, as you seem to suggest.\n\u003e\u003e \n\u003e\u003e Regarding developments on properly handling fees, there must exist the economic need for it before there’s an earnest effort to solve it. Increasing the block size right now will, in all likelihood, delay this effort. I’d much prefer to first let the fee market evolve because it’s a crucial component to the protocol’s design and its security model…and so we can get a better sense for fee economics. Then we might be able to figure out better approaches to block size changes in the future that makes sense economically…perhaps with mechanisms that can dynamically adjust it to reflect resource availability and network load.\n\u003e \n\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150724/596bbb00/attachment.html\u003e"}