{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"Tom Harding [ARCHIVE] (npub1ms…pmwjy)","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1msef5qkfwz4t7qacwxz775wgdtlytph78g2g2z903x90874u263sypmwjy","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2015-07-30\n📝 Original message:On 7/29/2015 9:48 PM, Ryan Butler via bitcoin-dev wrote:\n\u003e\n\u003e I shouldn't have said unlimited, i should have said a greater\n\u003e blocksize limit such as 8mb. \n\u003e\n\u003e Anyways, why is that the assumption?  If a miner can do so, and do so\n\u003e profitably, isn't that just competition?  Isn't that what we want?  If\n\u003e a miner can mine low transaction fees at a profit then don't they\n\u003e deserve to have their spot?  Surely if they do so unprofitably they\n\u003e quickly find themselves out of business?  Besides, if a miner mines\n\u003e low fee transactions by breaking rank, how does this affect another\n\u003e miner EXCEPT for the additional blocksize load.  I would maintain this\n\u003e is just competition amongst miners gentlemen.  And it's a good thing.\n\u003e\n\u003e Right now things are distorted because most income comes from the\n\u003e coinbase, but as transaction fees start to constitute the majority of\n\u003e income this idea seems to have more importance.\n\u003e\n\nYou're completely correct Ryan.\n\nThere has been a well functioning fee market since 2011.  Average fees\nhave never been zero, despite low-fee transactions being mined, and\ndespite no block size pressure until September 2014.\n\nAnother empirical fact also needs explaining.  Why have average fees *as\nmeasured in BTC* risen during the times of highest public interest in\nbitcoin?  This happened without block size pressure, and it is not an\nexchange rate effect -- these are raw BTC fees:\n\nhttps://blockchain.info/charts/transaction-fees?timespan=all\u0026daysAverageString=7\n\n... more evidence that conclusively refutes the conjecture that a\nproduction quota is necessary for a \"functioning fee market.\"  A\nproduction quota merely pushes up fees.  We have a functioning market,\nand so far, it shows that wider bitcoin usage is even more effective\nthan a quota at pushing up fees.\n\n\n\u003e On Jul 29, 2015 11:00 PM, \"Adam Back\" \u003cadam at cypherspace.org\n\u003e \u003cmailto:adam at cypherspace.org\u003e\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e     The assumption is that wont work because any miner can break ranks and\n\u003e     do so profitably, so to expect otherwise is to expect oligopoly\n\u003e     behaviour which is the sort of antithesis of a decentralised mining\n\u003e     system.  It's in fact a similar argument as to why decentralisation of\n\u003e     mining provides policy neutrality: some miner somewhere with some\n\u003e     hashrate will process your transaction even if some other miners are\n\u003e     by policy deciding not to mine it.  It is also similar reason why free\n\u003e     transactions are processed today - policies vary and this is good for\n\u003e     ensuring many types of transaction get processed.\n\u003e"}