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
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
|
Return-Path: <rryananizer@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7D79B273
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 30 Jul 2015 04:48:34 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-ob0-f179.google.com (mail-ob0-f179.google.com
[209.85.214.179])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E4091116
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 30 Jul 2015 04:48:33 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by obbop1 with SMTP id op1so22982187obb.2
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 29 Jul 2015 21:48:33 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
:cc:content-type;
bh=ijwNkcyD4gRgMmbQ4utBngLvZxLbyvgpH8h9CQyhaUw=;
b=VVgcWo6Lft7J9UnwzBDtr7V/CULdZC+A9OexDX06BHGvevPiGd3TIW7LFC9pL1n3aH
PYlGgGUJSlgEylJ05UjVFrjQw8Njb8A8zK4datTjxq8vBKynaWkqc7Q7/+Oott3S1ad8
/Cq/mT7vo3cQxAsNe4qKY3wpbLasbLkLoh1kmWlKO/RHfc1y9JB22L7heyUeCpub0PPc
MY9M+vF2cVW7/rNjtbCuKt71OrPvxl9TzeI7Z1evwu3wWzphDMhkxuN4QgTebAXScmUP
1+OfWqPD7v4zS3XKMe/nilKmqLoRAMYjgbvcDnZY8tKsUaeL94Ldr/b1z6S8trqQrpv2
0Tog==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.182.204.38 with SMTP id kv6mr43971154obc.70.1438231713406;
Wed, 29 Jul 2015 21:48:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.202.220.6 with HTTP; Wed, 29 Jul 2015 21:48:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.202.220.6 with HTTP; Wed, 29 Jul 2015 21:48:33 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CALqxMTHEknuwPW-uG3W9Fv1sQC54ud3zk4aLQaFGTTjAt7ghfA@mail.gmail.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>
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 23:48:33 -0500
Message-ID: <CAF_2MyXhhZyHSekOR0uTKndt8onEHqTJGnZwWFXoHw6xngidPA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ryan Butler <rryananizer@gmail.com>
To: Adam Back <adam@cypherspace.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e89a8ff252ac61e861051c106ac2
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@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 04:48:34 -0000
--e89a8ff252ac61e861051c106ac2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
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 Jul 29, 2015 11:00 PM, "Adam Back" <adam@cypherspace.org> wrote:
> 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
>
--e89a8ff252ac61e861051c106ac2
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<p dir=3D"ltr">I shouldn't have said unlimited, i should have said a gr=
eater blocksize limit such as 8mb.=C2=A0 </p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">Anyways, why is that the assumption?=C2=A0 If a miner can do=
so, and do so profitably, isn't that just competition?=C2=A0 Isn't=
that what we want?=C2=A0 If a miner can mine low transaction fees at a pro=
fit then don't they deserve to have their spot?=C2=A0 Surely if they do=
so unprofitably they quickly find themselves out of business?=C2=A0 Beside=
s, if a miner mines low fee transactions by breaking rank, how does this af=
fect another miner EXCEPT for the additional blocksize load.=C2=A0 I would =
maintain this is just competition amongst miners gentlemen.=C2=A0 And it=
9;s a good thing.</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">Right now things are distorted because most income comes fro=
m the coinbase, but as transaction fees start to constitute the majority of=
income this idea seems to have more importance.</p>
<div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Jul 29, 2015 11:00 PM, "Adam Back" =
<<a href=3D"mailto:adam@cypherspace.org">adam@cypherspace.org</a>> wr=
ote:<br type=3D"attribution"><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"mar=
gin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">On 29 July 2015=
at 20:41, Ryan Butler via bitcoin-dev<br>
<<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@li=
sts.linuxfoundation.org</a>> wrote:<br>
> Does an unlimited blocksize imply the lack of a fee market?=C2=A0 Isn&=
#39;t every<br>
> miner able to set their minimum accepted fee or transaction acceptance=
<br>
> algorithm?<br>
<br>
The assumption is that wont work because any miner can break ranks and<br>
do so profitably, so to expect otherwise is to expect oligopoly<br>
behaviour which is the sort of antithesis of a decentralised mining<br>
system.=C2=A0 It's in fact a similar argument as to why decentralisatio=
n of<br>
mining provides policy neutrality: some miner somewhere with some<br>
hashrate will process your transaction even if some other miners are<br>
by policy deciding not to mine it.=C2=A0 It is also similar reason why free=
<br>
transactions are processed today - policies vary and this is good for<br>
ensuring many types of transaction get processed.<br>
<br>
Adam<br>
</blockquote></div>
--e89a8ff252ac61e861051c106ac2--
|
