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: <rhavar@protonmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1FE1DDA2
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 12 Feb 2018 17:47:56 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail2.protonmail.ch (mail2.protonmail.ch [185.70.40.22])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 189E712D
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 12 Feb 2018 17:47:54 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2018 12:47:50 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=protonmail.com;
s=default; t=1518457671;
bh=Qw/GPaT4+kr/qgVY7STpGCTeAccPDFA7esMg3PRxXvc=;
h=Date:To:From:Cc:Reply-To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:
Feedback-ID:From;
b=xNJyP9cFSs/sllKCIhVPZ5a6bM+5DeA16PEpnCXbSm042+g3p4WYCAMjzlcMLbUCH
f4oV6yIYPf5NuZb8+KTwfUkkRRxC95iq4iH4XptaQ7CsMBFjrDbetA2qwYj//mWn42
UVEUxrNcV0m1K4GYwlgCPp7bZJ1NyRmcDJQblFyI=
To: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
From: rhavar@protonmail.com
Reply-To: rhavar@protonmail.com
Message-ID: <D9i6wDKxLfszPZHUdmMitbA851WuDUn1pPund0B_LWZLcPu3ecErl3NlUnwQe3yann5EPIF0smN6Sj4msAWbvpZoPPkhvdwIM9W8HbQbLSI=@protonmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAKaEYhJ5sMwBONR1AyYQg5PutwKO08UUGq=76XObk0M0Yt-raA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAKaEYhJ0vC8wf9yYjovfoZLB-TTvEnVB2a3mkC-YDzmnLwtz1Q@mail.gmail.com>
<CAKaEYhJ5sMwBONR1AyYQg5PutwKO08UUGq=76XObk0M0Yt-raA@mail.gmail.com>
Feedback-ID: RdfuD--Ffc-FNb_4UIG1XA3s5stj1f6Yt84KENdha_3WoiW3STYpu7X5uGR72LvTfQZpxEhSRHGSlNfV5XM5RA==:Ext:ProtonMail
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, LOTS_OF_MONEY,
RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW, T_MONEY_PERCENT autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 12 Feb 2018 17:58:05 +0000
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Total fees have almost crossed the block reward
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol 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: Mon, 12 Feb 2018 17:47:56 -0000
> This lead me to ponder whether the intuitive metric of satoshi/byte is, i=
n fact, game
>theory optimal.=C2=A0 Possibly over the short term it is, but over a longe=
r period, those
> wishing to increase the longevity of proof of work in general might wish =
to consider
> more progressive fee approaches.=C2=A0
The constraining factor for blocks is the max-block weight. So miners are a=
lready optimizing for the right thing (creating a block that gives the most=
immediate reward). If miners want to start a cartel-like behavior of charg=
ing more for more value-transfer it would be incredibly harmful and even li=
kely promote centralization (the cartel would likely not look kindly on any=
miner who doesn't follow their rules, and perhaps start orphaning their bl=
ocks).
Now I guess in theory you could add consensus rules that apply restrictions=
on the amount of "value transfer" in a block, such that miners are motivat=
ed to charge more for high-value transactions. However there's going to be =
almost 0 appetite from anyone to want to do anything like this, and the amo=
unt of unintended and harmful side effects would be profound. (Personally,=
I'd lose any interest in bitcoin if such a change was ever instated)
=E2=80=8B-Ryan
=E2=80=8B
-------- Original Message --------
On February 12, 2018 12:23 PM, Melvin Carvalho via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-de=
v@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
>
>On 21 December 2017 at 22:30, Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com> w=
rote:
>>I asked adam back at hcpp how the block chain would be secured in the lon=
g term, once the reward goes away.=C2=A0 The base idea has always been that=
fees would replace the block reward.
>>At that time fees were approximately 10% of the block reward, but have no=
w reached 45%, with 50% potentially being crossed soon
>>
>>https://fork.lol/reward/feepct
>>
>>While this bodes well for the long term security of the coin, I think the=
re is some legitimate concern that the fee per tx is prohibitive for some u=
se cases, at this point in the adoption curve.
>>
>>Observations of segwit adoption show around 10% at this point
>>
>>http://segwit.party/charts/
>>
>>Watching the mempool shows that the congestion is at a peak, though it's =
quite possible this will come down over the long weekend.=C2=A0 I wonder if=
this is of concern to some.
>>
>>https://dedi.jochen-hoenicke.de/queue/more/#24h
>>
>>I thought these data points may be of interest and are mainly FYI.=C2=
=A0 Though if further discussion is deemed appropriate, it would be interes=
ting to hear thoughts.
>>
>Just following up on this, for no other reason than I've had my eyes glued=
to these stats the last few weeks.=C2=A0 I'll share a few more stats links=
.
>Mempool has come down significantly, as have fees.=C2=A0 Tho, of course, t=
his could spike any time.=C2=A0=20
>
>https://bitinfocharts.com/bitcoin/
>Typically fees are :
>
>=C2=A0$2.06 on tx $543 (median) # 0.38%
>=C2=A0$3.47 on tx $75,000 (mean) # 0.005%
>Aside: An observation on this.=C2=A0 High value transactors seems to be ge=
tting a much better deal, than the mean.=C2=A0 This lead me to ponder wheth=
er the intuitive metric of satoshi/byte is, in fact, game theory optimal.=
=C2=A0 Possibly over the short term it is, but over a longer period, those =
wishing to increase the longevity of proof of work in general might wish to=
consider more progressive fee approaches.=C2=A0 Naively, it might be possi=
ble to imagine some kind of gaussian distribution that picks tx according t=
o a blended combination of sats/byte and %transacted.=C2=A0 Perhaps somethi=
ng for miners and fee estimation algorithms to develop over time.
>Segwit adoption has increased, and anecdotal evidence shows that trend to =
continue.=C2=A0 The release of 0.16 will I think also have a positive effec=
t.
>Finally, I came across this wonderful site that shows lightning network ad=
option on mainnet
>
>http://shabang.io/
>LN is increasing well.=C2=A0 Some blocks are not far off 1% lightning fund=
ing, which I think bodes well.=C2=A0 I'll go out on a limb and predict that=
over 1% of btc tx will be lightning based by year end.
>Since such posts are not strictly development, I'll keep them to a minimum=
.=C2=A0 However, I hope these stats provide useful data points for project =
evolution.
>
>
|
