Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin Core and hard forks

From: Jean-Paul Kogelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2015 08:49:20 +0800

And it's obvious how a size cap would interfere with such a QoS scheme. Miners wouldn't be able to deliver the below guarantees if they have to start excluding transactions.

> On Jul 24, 2015, at 8:45 AM, Jean-Paul Kogelman via bitcoin-dev <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Quality of service as in:
> 
>> X satoshi / kb = included in block currently worked on;
> 
>> Y satoshi / kb = included in next block;
> 
>> Z satoshi / kb = included in block after that, etc.
> 
> Block count starts when transaction is first seen. Miners can set X, Y, Z. 
> 
> Market develops when miners start setting different values and adding more transactions to blocks as opposed to other miners with higher settings. 
> 
> It basically comes down to the miners themselves if they want a healthy fee market. If they stick to their guns, their influence on the fees will be proportional to their hashing power.
> 
> jp
> 
>> On Jul 24, 2015, at 8:32 AM, Eric Lombrozo <[email-masked]> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>> On Jul 23, 2015, at 5:22 PM, Jean-Paul Kogelman <[email-masked]> 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.
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev