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.
On 29 July 2015 at 20:41, Ryan Butler via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> Does an unlimited blocksize imply the lack of a fee market? Isn't every
> miner able to set their minimum accepted fee or transaction acceptance
> algorithm?
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.
Adam