rich1.0npub1azvhdrf9fu6n0tm7yez4j6zcxcedp2ct6nrcq3z74naqs7kgpk8s5t2krqhttps://nostr.ae/npub1azvhdrf9fu6n0tm7yez4j6zcxcedp2ct6nrcq3z74naqs7kgpk8s5t2krqnjumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2015-07-23 📝 Original message:> On Jul 23, 2015, at 5:22 PM, Jean-Paul Kogelman <jeanpaulkogelman at me.com> wrote: > > You are not going to get a fair fee market if your only form of enforcement is the threat of exclusion. > > A more fair fee market will develop if miners start offering quality of service, preferably at multiple tiers. At that point any interference from a block size cap will only be detrimental. In fact it will only highlight what the cap is actually for; to prevent monster blocks. > > Add better QoS tools for miners and extend the cap (when possible) and there's your fee market. > > jp Not sure what you mean by QoS here. Either your transaction is included or it isn’t. It’s not like you can upgrade to a master suite with a view or anything. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 842 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150723/2d67e8c5/attachment-0001.sig>