{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1fx98zxt3lzspjs5f4msr0fxysx5euucm29ghysryju7vpc9j0jzqtcl2d8","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1fx98zxt3lzspjs5f4msr0fxysx5euucm29ghysryju7vpc9j0jzqtcl2d8","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2015-07-24\n📝 Original message:On Jul 24, 2015 8:30 AM, \"Tom Harding\" \u003ctomh at thinlink.com\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\n\u003e On 7/23/2015 10:51 AM, Jorge Timón wrote:\n\u003e \u003e We know perfectly well that the system will need to eventually be\n\u003e \u003e sustained by fees.\n\u003e\n\u003e Fee revenue can rise just as easily without increased BTC fee rates.\n\u003e\n\u003e Two avenues that are just as effective: increased exchange rate,\n\u003e increased number of fee-paying transactions.  Neither of these avenues\n\u003e benefits from increased \"fee pressure\" (scarcity of block space).\n\u003e\n\nWhy do you expect users to \"increase the number of fee-paying transactions\"\nif their free transactions reliably get mined relatively fast?\nAnd if it's good that they pay fees, why is not good when the reason they\ndo it is because there's limited space in the block? Is user's paying fees\nsoon a good thing or the \"catastrophe\" we need to avoid by rising the block\nsize, what is it? Or is there something else wrong with having a limit\nother than \"fees will hurt short-term adoption\"? I'm confused about your\nposition now...\n\nRegarding \"increasing the exchange rate\" it would be really nice to just\npush a button and double bitcoin's price just before the next subsidy\nhalving, but unfortunately that's something out of our control.\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150724/f546c1a4/attachment.html\u003e"}