Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 278F371 for ; Fri, 7 Aug 2015 14:57:27 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-la0-f48.google.com (mail-la0-f48.google.com [209.85.215.48]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CCBE8A9 for ; Fri, 7 Aug 2015 14:57:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: by labd1 with SMTP id d1so9852685lab.1 for ; Fri, 07 Aug 2015 07:57:24 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=loDhTqINhjaFnlDXLdsDjf9fRbpNV6ryLebbbPP77Ng=; b=q9BL7g4FGxW6R1TNxmJ2vN7rxQzMqmnWJGUKSxiW8Rx466scnPNxsXda8QcJ42VDsr 4fAzhtssmNqvKm7iJDY9ps0sGGs7njEh+F+Ti+88RgLsUGVmfwJk5XfZyS4Q/X6/c5I/ p7wNfzSIRG/GWX1/4WWDqZW9V3JcsZyOS9DGV1S1+A53tqswGWPzStD3M1/QFNiz4EF7 ElhUWOs7kZ6CxGPz4YykSEWR8ji04AU9GhvofU450BeH73phIBbkt6fcb7pFTc3devO9 lH4rUtJCoqpYA1lALxCGQSBOQpUYahNYz9ul3vmAljCfpYnEIxWxFjxXJkJcDUEOaWRu qXWA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.112.149.164 with SMTP id ub4mr7932342lbb.65.1438959444032; Fri, 07 Aug 2015 07:57:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.25.143.195 with HTTP; Fri, 7 Aug 2015 07:57:23 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2015 10:57:23 -0400 Message-ID: From: Gavin Andresen To: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b343f88820296051cb9dab8 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: [bitcoin-dev] Fees and the block-finding process X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2015 14:57:27 -0000 --047d7b343f88820296051cb9dab8 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Popping this into it's own thread: Jorge asked: > >> 1) If "not now", when will it be a good time to let the "market > >> minimum fee for miners to mine a transaction" rise above zero? > I answered: > > 1. If you are willing to wait an infinite amount of time, I think the > > minimum fee will always be zero or very close to zero, so I think it's a > > silly question. > Which Jorge misinterpreted to mean that I think there will always be at least one miner willing to mine a transaction for free. That's not what I'm thinking. It is just an observation based on the fact that blocks are found at random intervals. Every once in a while the network will get lucky and we'll find six blocks in ten minutes. If you are deciding what transaction fee to put on your transaction, and you're willing to wait until that six-blocks-in-ten-minutes once-a-week event, submit your transaction with a low fee. All the higher-fee transactions waiting to be confirmed will get confirmed in the first five blocks and, if miners don't have any floor on the fee they'll accept (they will, but lets pretend they won't) then your very-low-fee transaction will get confirmed. In the limit, that logic becomes "wait an infinite amount of time, pay zero fee." So... I have no idea what the 'market minimum fee' will be, because I have no idea how long people will be willing to wait, how many times they'll be willing to retransmit a low-fee transaction that gets evicted from memory-limited memory pools, or how much memory miners will be willing to dedicate to storing transactions that won't confirm for a long time because they're waiting for a flurry of blocks to be found. -- -- Gavin Andresen --047d7b343f88820296051cb9dab8 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Popping this into it's own thread:

Jorge asked:
>> 1= ) If "not now", when will it be a good time to let the "mark= et
>> minimum fee for miners to mine a transaction" rise above zero= ?

I answered:
=C2=A0
<= blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px= #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> >=C2=A01. If you are willing to wait an infinite amount of time, I think= the
> minimum fee will always be zero or very close to zero, so I think it&#= 39;s a
> silly question.

Which Jorge= misinterpreted to mean that I think there will always be at least one mine= r willing to mine a transaction for free.

That'= ;s not what I'm thinking. It is just an observation based on the fact t= hat blocks are found at random intervals.

Every on= ce in a while the network will get lucky and we'll find six blocks in t= en minutes. If you are deciding what transaction fee to put on your transac= tion, and you're willing to wait until that six-blocks-in-ten-minutes o= nce-a-week event, submit your transaction with a low fee.

All the higher-fee transactions waiting to be confirmed will get co= nfirmed in the first five blocks and, if miners don't have any floor on= the fee they'll accept (they will, but lets pretend they won't) th= en your very-low-fee transaction will get confirmed.

In the limit, that logic becomes "wait an infinite amount of time, = pay zero fee."

So... I have no idea what the = 'market minimum fee' will be, because I have no idea how long peopl= e will be willing to wait, how many times they'll be willing to retrans= mit a low-fee transaction that gets evicted from memory-limited memory pool= s, or how much memory miners will be willing to dedicate to storing transac= tions that won't confirm for a long time because they're waiting fo= r a flurry of blocks to be found.

--
--
Gavin Andresen

--047d7b343f88820296051cb9dab8--