rich1.0npub1fx98zxt3lzspjs5f4msr0fxysx5euucm29ghysryju7vpc9j0jzqtcl2d8https://nostr.ae/npub1fx98zxt3lzspjs5f4msr0fxysx5euucm29ghysryju7vpc9j0jzqtcl2d8njumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2015-07-24 📝 Original message:On Jul 24, 2015 8:30 AM, "Tom Harding" <tomh at thinlink.com> wrote: > > On 7/23/2015 10:51 AM, Jorge Timón wrote: > > We know perfectly well that the system will need to eventually be > > sustained by fees. > > Fee revenue can rise just as easily without increased BTC fee rates. > > Two avenues that are just as effective: increased exchange rate, > increased number of fee-paying transactions. Neither of these avenues > benefits from increased "fee pressure" (scarcity of block space). > Why do you expect users to "increase the number of fee-paying transactions" if their free transactions reliably get mined relatively fast? And if it's good that they pay fees, why is not good when the reason they do it is because there's limited space in the block? Is user's paying fees soon a good thing or the "catastrophe" we need to avoid by rising the block size, what is it? Or is there something else wrong with having a limit other than "fees will hurt short-term adoption"? I'm confused about your position now... Regarding "increasing the exchange rate" it would be really nice to just push a button and double bitcoin's price just before the next subsidy halving, but unfortunately that's something out of our control. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150724/f546c1a4/attachment.html>