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
|
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 5355F9B
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 30 Jul 2015 13:14:21 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-pd0-f175.google.com (mail-pd0-f175.google.com
[209.85.192.175])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AFEC0EB
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 30 Jul 2015 13:14:20 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by pdbnt7 with SMTP id nt7so24571245pdb.0
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 30 Jul 2015 06:14:20 -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:from:message-id:date
:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type
:content-transfer-encoding;
bh=2dy71dl/xggsRG7WkYCu+wSss6AisIT5hrUOi1Qyt1w=;
b=mv5cYsLGRw3QBL/pPZL/suAh4vClrAiQF2b1DJpQkIRBtMsx8rQ88UnRsmzhPPe6Yq
T7PyLQsI+4vZ9QldCzndK5cKT+watO40VzIhs3ST8VqsxThxNueyjNDLH1erQXuD7ajM
woRooK9GlylwOGQI+Cwq6peOjd6TfJYauvkFFtY2mxqvTxra026NRCqFyovE/ImjxzS/
5ht+bkmNC129gnC17FcV7Wk5UI4xnOjKag3Ts4QCtwxPAvFozoMw7UkZlvudWYgvH4jv
xz+gOvBFIYYdIKg4QJEili1E+XPs9qlDBqeZGbU88myWOdvkYFv96VmD928DRNgo638d
FR5Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlUvNUCzl7J/0nOa53yOm55whsnhe4pgon6lUgegdNZcUQEK52g+BQPceLTnqMyGgkSmcOO
X-Received: by 10.70.102.209 with SMTP id fq17mr107637680pdb.77.1438262060365;
Thu, 30 Jul 2015 06:14:20 -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
un2sm2224979pac.28.2015.07.30.06.14.17
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
(version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128);
Thu, 30 Jul 2015 06:14:18 -0700 (PDT)
To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
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>
From: Tom Harding <tomh@thinlink.com>
X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110
Message-ID: <55BA2329.1080700@thinlink.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 06:14:17 -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: <CAF_2MyXhhZyHSekOR0uTKndt8onEHqTJGnZwWFXoHw6xngidPA@mail.gmail.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
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 13:14:21 -0000
On 7/29/2015 9:48 PM, Ryan Butler via bitcoin-dev wrote:
>
> 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.
>
You're completely correct Ryan.
There has been a well functioning fee market since 2011. Average fees
have never been zero, despite low-fee transactions being mined, and
despite no block size pressure until September 2014.
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
... 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.
> On Jul 29, 2015 11:00 PM, "Adam Back" <adam@cypherspace.org
> <mailto:adam@cypherspace.org>> wrote:
>
>
> 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.
>
|
