rich1.0npub1fx98zxt3lzspjs5f4msr0fxysx5euucm29ghysryju7vpc9j0jzqtcl2d8https://nostr.ae/npub1fx98zxt3lzspjs5f4msr0fxysx5euucm29ghysryju7vpc9j0jzqtcl2d8njumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2015-07-30 📝 Original message:On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 3:14 PM, Tom Harding via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > On 7/29/2015 9:48 PM, Ryan Butler via bitcoin-dev wrote: > ... more evidence that conclusively refutes the conjecture that a > production quota is necessary for a "functioning fee market." A > production quota merely pushes up fees. We have a functioning market, > and so far, it shows that wider bitcoin usage is even more effective > than a quota at pushing up fees. The blocksize limit (your "production quota") is necessary for decentralization, not for having a functioning fee market. But I have the hope that hitting the limit would help with getting rid of all that special-case or at least would encourage miners to implement their own policies. If we can agree that hitting the limit will JUST cause higher fees and not bitcoin to fail, puppies to die or the sky to turn purple I think that's a great step forward in this debate. >From that perspective, hitting the limit is not something terribly bad (as said, I think it can even have positive consequences; for example, higher fees may be just what is needed for more scalable solutions [like payment channels] to be adopted by bitcoin companies). Hitting the limit may produce a more healthy market, but it is true that a market for fast confirmations already exists. Unless we want to completely get rid of the blocksize limit (which I would consider another debate entirely), we will eventually hit the limit anyway. Why not now so that we can make sure the software is completely compatible with having a limit? Why we can hit the limit eventually but not now? (As said, unless you think the limit should be completely removed forever).