From: Tom Harding <tomh@thinlink•com>
To: bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Răspuns: Personal opinion on the fee market from a worried local trader
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 06:14:17 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <55BA2329.1080700@thinlink.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAF_2MyXhhZyHSekOR0uTKndt8onEHqTJGnZwWFXoHw6xngidPA@mail.gmail.com>
On 7/29/2015 9:48 PM, Ryan Butler via bitcoin-dev wrote:
>
> I shouldn't have said unlimited, i should have said a greater
> blocksize limit such as 8mb.
>
> Anyways, why is that the assumption? If a miner can do so, and do so
> profitably, isn't that just competition? Isn't that what we want? If
> a miner can mine low transaction fees at a profit then don't they
> deserve to have their spot? Surely if they do so unprofitably they
> quickly find themselves out of business? Besides, if a miner mines
> low fee transactions by breaking rank, how does this affect another
> miner EXCEPT for the additional blocksize load. I would maintain this
> is just competition amongst miners gentlemen. And it's a good thing.
>
> Right now things are distorted because most income comes from the
> coinbase, but as transaction fees start to constitute the majority of
> income this idea seems to have more importance.
>
You're completely correct Ryan.
There has been a well functioning fee market since 2011. Average fees
have never been zero, despite low-fee transactions being mined, and
despite no block size pressure until September 2014.
Another empirical fact also needs explaining. Why have average fees *as
measured in BTC* risen during the times of highest public interest in
bitcoin? This happened without block size pressure, and it is not an
exchange rate effect -- these are raw BTC fees:
https://blockchain.info/charts/transaction-fees?timespan=all&daysAverageString=7
... 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.
> On Jul 29, 2015 11:00 PM, "Adam Back" <adam@cypherspace•org
> <mailto:adam@cypherspace•org>> wrote:
>
>
> The assumption is that wont work because any miner can break ranks and
> do so profitably, so to expect otherwise is to expect oligopoly
> behaviour which is the sort of antithesis of a decentralised mining
> system. It's in fact a similar argument as to why decentralisation of
> mining provides policy neutrality: some miner somewhere with some
> hashrate will process your transaction even if some other miners are
> by policy deciding not to mine it. It is also similar reason why free
> transactions are processed today - policies vary and this is good for
> ensuring many types of transaction get processed.
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-07-30 13:14 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <CADZB0_ZgDMhVgCUh2PTAPDL7k_W8QGt_HLYdkwv_qQ5xEMn8HA@mail.gmail.com>
2015-07-29 14:09 ` Vali Zero
2015-07-29 17:47 ` Raystonn .
2015-07-29 22:54 ` s7r
2015-07-30 3:41 ` Ryan Butler
2015-07-30 4:00 ` Adam Back
2015-07-30 4:05 ` Adam Back
2015-07-30 4:48 ` Ryan Butler
2015-07-30 13:14 ` Tom Harding [this message]
2015-07-30 14:25 ` Dave Hudson
2015-07-30 14:57 ` Tom Harding
2015-07-30 18:14 ` Jorge Timón
2015-07-30 18:16 ` Jorge Timón
2015-07-30 20:53 ` Tom Harding
2015-07-31 1:21 ` Jorge Timón
2015-07-31 1:29 ` Jorge Timón
2015-07-31 9:56 ` Thomas Zander
2015-07-31 12:32 ` Oleg Andreev
2015-07-31 15:24 ` Jorge Timón
2015-07-30 12:45 ` Ivan Brightly
2015-07-30 4:07 ` Jean-Paul Kogelman
2015-07-30 9:52 ` odinn
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=55BA2329.1080700@thinlink.com \
--to=tomh@thinlink$(echo .)com \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox