1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
|
Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <tomh@thinlink.com>) id 1YqaBd-0005Ao-9J
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Fri, 08 May 2015 04:46:57 +0000
X-ACL-Warn:
Received: from mail-pd0-f178.google.com ([209.85.192.178])
by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1YqaBb-0004Or-4d
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Fri, 08 May 2015 04:46:57 +0000
Received: by pdbnk13 with SMTP id nk13so63098178pdb.0
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Thu, 07 May 2015 21:46:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to
:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type
:content-transfer-encoding;
bh=NYlZkS95A2KBEUFsVA8zTNlpBiBu0SHWRFWXfKyIlkQ=;
b=a1pgzK/rvF9ZybkPLTZynayzODnqx7+YBhd40BHOu3ALTQLJwxkke56R0FUmcVWG+l
MdKRH+1HyR3GR6j4BNfOM6M/Wc1a5Yo0qYXMClWuD7GO9fIjhtd9i5Wt8X3LQTMRY5/Q
IOsrnSNyjmXPavvPI1ZtjksGKzsegkB9tjNLWwNHBTSrCQoZfe6ooI/+lbJzW0hUJEhP
pjyFPGMgJquhXYAJFSXG1smBOrJifcVoCAaOLiZsf8aq7svYUIuxYtBwCqhljiq9YCxC
aGmZgZK6qsQCEJxH7CFqi39ufZ+JSLIxU8Q/vwBa9Hr8UxLc9P5dM4owwBXuHNPkQWJD
kE2Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlyaKyLUu421tL62aK840e0cnqH//3wBQOzhzvpnpgIt+3SXZ/q+HUiEx5Vvy6ISbWNmhHG
X-Received: by 10.70.98.233 with SMTP id el9mr3543489pdb.54.1431060408943;
Thu, 07 May 2015 21:46:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.89] (99-8-65-117.lightspeed.davlca.sbcglobal.net.
[99.8.65.117])
by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id pd5sm3692900pbb.25.2015.05.07.21.46.47
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
(version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128);
Thu, 07 May 2015 21:46:48 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <554C3FB8.6000309@thinlink.com>
Date: Thu, 07 May 2015 21:46:48 -0700
From: Tom Harding <tomh@thinlink.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64;
rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
References: <554A91BE.6060105@bluematt.me> <CANEZrP3wGWHdz+ut6pvke5TJJsc1rTFt8sn2KziX35oL5LAsyg@mail.gmail.com> <CABm2gDpDvk2VsQ+mJ-BoeBKmvu9jBXNujZEFKuCStRNjFL6VOA@mail.gmail.com> <5049F137-E123-47F6-9D24-FE51B92629FF@hashingit.com>
<CABm2gDpceBQ=SqH-axgbMgOGOf8cOe1wLyJgJY5TEFu4taiNwA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABm2gDpceBQ=SqH-axgbMgOGOf8cOe1wLyJgJY5TEFu4taiNwA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
X-Headers-End: 1YqaBb-0004Or-4d
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Block Size Increase
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 08 May 2015 04:46:57 -0000
On 5/7/2015 6:40 AM, Jorge Tim=F3n wrote:
>> Known: There's a major problem looming for miners at the next block re=
ward
>> halving. Many are already in a bad place and without meaningful fees t=
hen
>> sans a 2x increase in the USD:BTC ratio then many will simply have to =
leave
>> the network, increasing centralisation risks. There seems to be a fair=
ly
>> pervasive assumption that the 300-ish MW of power that they currently =
use is
>> going to pay for itself (ignoring capital and other operating costs).
> I take this as an argument for increasing fee competition and thus,
> against increasing the block size.
>
That doesn't follow. Supposing average fees per transaction decrease
with block size, total fees / block reach an optimum somewhere. While
the optimum might be at infinity, it's certainly not at zero, and it's
not at all obvious that the optimum is at a block size lower than 1MB.
|
