{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub149tvqh6gesh22h60jrehl5clrxscx6q65wznq9ty6pae8sxq00esg5vasy","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub149tvqh6gesh22h60jrehl5clrxscx6q65wznq9ty6pae8sxq00esg5vasy","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2017-03-30\n📝 Original message:\u003e What we want is a true fee-market where the miner can decide to make a\nblock\n\u003e smaller to get people to pay more fees, because if we were to go to 16MB\n\u003e blocks in one go, the cost of the miner would go up, but his reward based\non\n\u003e fees will go down!\n\nI agree in concept with everything you've said here, but I think there's a\nfrequent misconception that there's a certain level of miner payouts that\nminers \"deserve\" and/or the opposite, that miners \"deserve\" as little as\npossible.  The 51% attacks that PoW's shields us from are relatively well\ndefined, which can be used to estimate the minimum amount of sustainable\nfees for shielding.  Beyond that minimum amount of fees, the best amount of\nfees for every non-miner is the lowest.\n\nUnfortunately miners could arbitrarily decide to limit blocksizes, and\nthere's little except relay restrictions that everyone else could do about\nit.  Fortunately miners so far have pushed for blocksize increases at least\nas much as anyone else, though the future when Bitcoin adoption stabilizes\nwould be an unknown.\n\n\u003e A block so big that 100% of the transactions will always be mined in the\n\u003e next block will just cause a large section of people to no longer feel the\n\u003e need to pay fees.\n\nFYI, I don't see this happening again ever, barring brief exceptions,\nunless there was a sudden blocksize change, which ideally we'd avoid ever\nhappening.  The stable average value of the transaction fee determines what\nkind of business use-cases can be built using Bitcoin.  An average fee of\n$0.001 usd enables a lot more use cases than $0.10 average fees, and $50.00\naverage fees still have far more possible use cases than a $1000 average\nfee.  If fees stabilize low, use cases will spring up to fill the\nblockspace, unless miners arbitraily seek to keep the fees above some level.\n\nOn Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 3:30 AM, Tom Zander via bitcoin-dev \u003c\nbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e On Thursday, 30 March 2017 07:23:31 CEST Ryan J Martin via bitcoin-dev\n\u003e wrote:\n\u003e \u003e      The original post and the assorted limit proposals---lead me to\n\u003e \u003e something I think is worth reiterating: assuming Bitcoin adoption\n\u003e \u003e continues to grow at similar or accelerating rates, then eventually the\n\u003e \u003e mempool is going to be filled with thousands of txs at all times whether\n\u003e \u003e block limits are 1MB or 16MB\n\u003e\n\u003e This is hopefully true. :)\n\u003e\n\u003e There is an unbounded amount of demand for block space, and as such it\n\u003e doesn’t benefit anyone if the amount of free transactions get out of hand.\n\u003e Because freeloaders would definitely be able to completely suffocate\n\u003e Bitcoin.\n\u003e\n\u003e In the mail posted by OP he makes clear that this is a proposal for a hard\n\u003e fork to change the block size *limit*. The actual block size would not be\n\u003e changed at the same time, it will continue being set based on market values\n\u003e or whatever we decide between now and then.\n\u003e\n\u003e The block size itself should be set based on the amount of fees being paid\n\u003e to miners to make a block.\n\u003e\n\u003e What we want is a true fee-market where the miner can decide to make a\n\u003e block\n\u003e smaller to get people to pay more fees, because if we were to go to 16MB\n\u003e blocks in one go, the cost of the miner would go up, but his reward based\n\u003e on\n\u003e fees will go down!\n\u003e A block so big that 100% of the transactions will always be mined in the\n\u003e next block will just cause a large section of people to no longer feel the\n\u003e need to pay fees.\n\u003e\n\u003e As such I don’t fear the situation where the block size limit goes up a lot\n\u003e in one go, because it is not in anyone’s interest to make the actual block\n\u003e size follow.\n\u003e --\n\u003e Tom Zander\n\u003e Blog: https://zander.github.io\n\u003e Vlog: https://vimeo.com/channels/tomscryptochannel\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\u003e\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20170330/1f44fdaf/attachment.html\u003e"}