public inbox for bitcoindev@googlegroups.com
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Tom Harding <tomh@thinlink•com>
To: Dave Hudson <dave@hashingit•com>
Cc: 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 07:57:27 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <55BA3B57.2060101@thinlink.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <58D8CEFE-2763-452E-B731-DDF7AFD77677@hashingit.com>


Yes.  So far, the transaction count factor has completely dominated the
per-tx fee factor.  This fact should be of great interest to miners.


On 7/30/2015 7:25 AM, Dave Hudson wrote:
>
>> On 30 Jul 2015, at 06:14, Tom Harding via bitcoin-dev
>> <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
>> <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>> wrote:
>>
>> 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
>
> I've not published any new figures for about 8 months (will try to do
> that this weekend), but the thing that that chart doesn't show is
> what's actually happening to fees per transaction. Here's a chart that
> does: http://hashingit.com/analysis/35-the-future-of-bitcoin-transaction-fees
>
> The data is also taken from blockchain.info so it's apples-for-apples.
> It shows that far from a fees going up they spent 3 years dropping. I
> just ran a new chart and the decline in fees continued until about 8
> weeks when the "stress tests" first occurred. Even so, they're still
> below the level from the end of 2013. By comparison the total
> transaction volume is up about 2.4x to 2.5x (don't have the exact number).
>
>> ... 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.
>
> I think it's equally easy to argue (from the same data) that wider
> adoption has actually caused wallet users to become much more
> effective at fee selection. Miners (as expected, assuming that they
> hadn't formed a cartel) have continued to accept whatever fees are
> available, no matter how small. Only where there has been an element
> of scarcity have we actually seen miners do anything but take whatever
> is offered.
>
> Clearly history is not an accurate indicator of what might happen in
> the future, but it seems difficult to argue that there has been any
> sort of fee market emerge to date (other than as a result of scarcity
> during the stress tests).
>



  reply	other threads:[~2015-07-30 14:57 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
2015-07-30 14:25               ` Dave Hudson
2015-07-30 14:57                 ` Tom Harding [this message]
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=55BA3B57.2060101@thinlink.com \
    --to=tomh@thinlink$(echo .)com \
    --cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
    --cc=dave@hashingit$(echo .)com \
    /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