rich1.0Tom Harding [ARCHIVE] (npub1ms…pmwjy)https://nostr.ae/npub1msef5qkfwz4t7qacwxz775wgdtlytph78g2g2z903x90874u263sypmwjynjumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2017-03-30 📝 Original message:Raystonn, Your logic is very hard to dispute. An important special case is small miners. Small miners use pools exactly because they want smaller, more frequent payments. Rising fees force them to take payments less frequently, and will only tend to make more of them give up. With fees rising superlinearly, this centralizing effect is much stronger than the oft-cited worry of small miners joining large pools to decrease orphan rates. On Mar 29, 2017 15:01, "Raystonn . via bitcoin-dev" < bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: Low node costs are a good goal for nodes that handle transactions the node operator can afford. Nobody is going to run a node for a network they do not use for their own transactions. If transactions have fees that prohibit use for most economic activity, that means node count will drop until nodes are generally run by those who settle large amounts. That is very centralizing. Raystonn On 29 Mar 2017 12:14 p.m., Jared Lee Richardson via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: In order for any blocksize increase to be agreed upon, more consensus is needed. The proportion of users believing no blocksize increases are needed is larger than the hardfork target core wants(95% consensus). The proportion of users believing in microtransactions for all is also larger than 5%, and both of those groups may be larger than 10% respectively. I don't think either the Big-blocks faction nor the low-node-costs faction have even a simple majority of support. Getting consensus is going to be a big mess, but it is critical that it is done. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20170330/2efe6ad0/attachment.html>