public inbox for bitcoindev@googlegroups.com
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Dave Hudson <dave@hashingit•com>
To: Tom Harding <tomh@thinlink•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 07:25:43 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <58D8CEFE-2763-452E-B731-DDF7AFD77677@hashingit.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <55BA2329.1080700@thinlink.com>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2313 bytes --]


> On 30 Jul 2015, at 06:14, Tom Harding via bitcoin-dev <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 <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 <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).


[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 9701 bytes --]

  reply	other threads:[~2015-07-30 14:25 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 [this message]
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=58D8CEFE-2763-452E-B731-DDF7AFD77677@hashingit.com \
    --to=dave@hashingit$(echo .)com \
    --cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
    --cc=tomh@thinlink$(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