Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3398571 for ; Mon, 10 Aug 2015 13:03:10 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-wi0-f169.google.com (mail-wi0-f169.google.com [209.85.212.169]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8DAAE176 for ; Mon, 10 Aug 2015 13:03:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: by wicja10 with SMTP id ja10so24676093wic.1 for ; Mon, 10 Aug 2015 06:03:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=eOQjbFg8vtHPu6EJKxqZlCwR8FG/vghF+67s4LGocZ4=; b=G6x4soXey8/e+4SYKKw+PHjjBf1exV3SfNEkC0Xht1REK1kn5HkJadE0IbVasDZkov lXgRJLpIFgtQwFZd1eEmQxCISxXmtI0TgjfJ1iFFdeeA4eYjmdueYAporcUUaWJPR5Cl mjemS/gFMDOG3LUBHDBBuveI79OnJL3sAO59I79hS5z9LThRaojuVXTptlGmqbs9saP6 NpPoRyrKsqiAhQrUx8XgpuPzx13aRn6dkLrTRjv0sm+fdlJtmUm9EXqCGmgbP1ivtOpJ /314Y7yTmj+RbqyKtf6lakgLll2wBKivDvTQ/D/mtHpCisTOorF5slljNdISnjfQQ0cA IDVA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkslQuCH/rdnbjU/lL57hHI5k+4ufgEAj2BVU7rrQ7fhXsJfpfvNp/gmbzCHOlfftIAurKw MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.194.120.198 with SMTP id le6mr43747730wjb.133.1439211786995; Mon, 10 Aug 2015 06:03:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.194.31.230 with HTTP; Mon, 10 Aug 2015 06:03:06 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2015 15:03:06 +0200 Message-ID: From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= To: Btc Drak Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 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 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Fees and the block-finding process X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2015 13:03:10 -0000 On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 2:33 PM, Btc Drak wrote: > Additionally, correct me if I am wrong, but the net effect from preventing > fees rising from zero would be to guarantee miners have no alternative > income from fees as block subsidy dries up and thus harm the incentives to > secure the chain. I don't think that's necessarily true. Theoretically urgent transactions could fund hashing power on their own while there are still some free non-urgent transactions being mined from time to time.