rich1.0Tom Harding [ARCHIVE] (npub1ms…pmwjy)https://nostr.ae/npub1msef5qkfwz4t7qacwxz775wgdtlytph78g2g2z903x90874u263sypmwjynjumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2015-05-06 📝 Original message:On 5/6/2015 3:12 PM, Matt Corallo wrote: > Long-term incentive compatibility requires > that there be some fee pressure, and that blocks be relatively > consistently full or very nearly full. I think it's way too early to even consider a future era when the fiat value of the block reward is no longer the biggest-by-far mining incentive. Creating fee pressure means driving some people to choose something else, not bitcoin. "Too many people using bitcoin" is nowhere on the list of problems today. It's reckless to tinker with adoption in hopes of spurring innovation on speculation, while a "can kick" is available. Adoption is currently at miniscule, test-flight, relatively insignificant levels when compared to global commerce. As Gavin discussed in the article, under "Block size and miner fees… again," the best way to maximize miner incentives is to focus on doing things that are likely to increase adoption, which, in our fiat-dominated world, lead to a justifiably increased exchange rate. Any innovation attractive enough to relieve the block size pressure will do so just as well without artificial stimulus. Thanks for kicking off the discussion. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150506/259707d3/attachment.html>