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
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
|
Return-Path: <tomh@thinlink.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 429EE268
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 30 Jul 2015 14:57:30 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-pa0-f41.google.com (mail-pa0-f41.google.com
[209.85.220.41])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BFE7CF7
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 30 Jul 2015 14:57:29 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by pachj5 with SMTP id hj5so24752366pac.3
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 30 Jul 2015 07:57:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date
:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type
:content-transfer-encoding;
bh=n3k4cfSsvxE97pgxrRZxELesav23x1cQ+fDlHuNtSXI=;
b=D8MgvGK3VmjKWpFsANZZhGuy8bgaNrosHWt74icx753HHoeHUgPCkBV5kLpMbsdsNa
PruuilGyJjgCy+l4GAZ52mQgAc7dn1ZqAMbYz8ONHyCwPs5OFK9ZQbFubfZL/e0t9BAa
jrAyfH01UXvsxQqrLFXzRvLuseclloWS4m3683GdhgEL9+TdQO+9M7BHNd9gzn3q5UWz
doqZiVhtwiB8uVrXghSMoLKA9STzw6Foczo3uzKhBCec5WG7j8lU/hiLS8oq63wIADN5
gSNEGexmE7yV1GciA6oi7bwrFDoATfkEs+rPV0LyKvCfTIWksaAq43dGDHi5xq5BYd6Y
sUEg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQl+QB0LQpa3IoKn1PdWIw8og6JUZ9fD0mbL6BiDnidMD2h87lheKz2+sZyDF2wQoick4J+8
X-Received: by 10.66.158.3 with SMTP id wq3mr106667501pab.38.1438268249176;
Thu, 30 Jul 2015 07:57:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.89] (99-8-65-117.lightspeed.davlca.sbcglobal.net.
[99.8.65.117]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id
c5sm2625250pds.87.2015.07.30.07.57.26
(version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128);
Thu, 30 Jul 2015 07:57:27 -0700 (PDT)
To: Dave Hudson <dave@hashingit.com>
References: <CADZB0_ZgDMhVgCUh2PTAPDL7k_W8QGt_HLYdkwv_qQ5xEMn8HA@mail.gmail.com>
<543015348.4948849.1438178962054.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>
<COL131-DS3F7339BCCA36BEFD1755ACD8C0@phx.gbl>
<55B959A2.9020402@sky-ip.org>
<CAF_2MyVAXg9788gatEQ-t4=8rJxXdkf9DA45uF5_gksDUM6b=A@mail.gmail.com>
<CALqxMTHEknuwPW-uG3W9Fv1sQC54ud3zk4aLQaFGTTjAt7ghfA@mail.gmail.com>
<CAF_2MyXhhZyHSekOR0uTKndt8onEHqTJGnZwWFXoHw6xngidPA@mail.gmail.com>
<55BA2329.1080700@thinlink.com>
<58D8CEFE-2763-452E-B731-DDF7AFD77677@hashingit.com>
From: Tom Harding <tomh@thinlink.com>
X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110
Message-ID: <55BA3B57.2060101@thinlink.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 07:57:27 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/38.1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <58D8CEFE-2763-452E-B731-DDF7AFD77677@hashingit.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,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@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev]
=?utf-8?q?R=C4=83spuns=3A_Personal_opinion_on_the_f?=
=?utf-8?q?ee_market_from_a_worried_local_trader?=
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 14:57:30 -0000
Yes. So far, the transaction count factor has completely dominated the
per-tx fee factor. This fact should be of great interest to miners.
On 7/30/2015 7:25 AM, Dave Hudson wrote:
>
>> On 30 Jul 2015, at 06:14, Tom Harding via bitcoin-dev
>> <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> <mailto: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
>
> 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
>
> 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).
>
|
