Added back the list, I didn't mean to reply privately:

Fair enough, I'll try to find time in the next month or three to write up four plausible future scenarios for how mining incentives might work:

1) Fee-supported with very large blocks containing lots of tiny-fee transactions

2) Proof-of-idle supported (I wish Tadge Dryja would publish his proof-of-idle idea....)

3) Fees purely as transaction-spam-prevention measure, chain security via alternative consensus algorithm (in this scenario there is very little mining).

4) Fee supported with small blocks containing high-fee transactions moving coins to/from sidechains.

Would that be helpful, or do you have some reason for thinking that we should pick just one and focus all of our efforts on making that one scenario happen?

I always think it is better, when possible, not to "bet on one horse."

On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 10:39 AM, Thomas Voegtlin <thomasv@electrum.org> wrote:

Le 12/05/2015 15:44, Gavin Andresen a écrit :
> Ok, here's my scenario:
>
> https://blog.bitcoinfoundation.org/a-scalability-roadmap/
>
> It might be wrong. I welcome other people to present their road maps.
>

[answering to you only because you answered to me and not to the list;
feel free to repost this to the list though]

Yes, that's exactly the kind of roadmap I am asking for. But your blog
post does not say anything about long term mining incentives, it only
talks about scalability. My point is that we need the same kind of thing
for miners incentives.

--
Gavin Andresen