MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <55B1DB84.6070001@thinlink.com>
References: <CAPg+sBgs-ouEMu=LOVCmOyCGwfM1Ygxooz0shyvAuHDGGZYfJw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPg+sBgugLSVEwDLXhgey86_rM2fTjGWXFuXsiZioJKCZiHiNg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADm_WcbnQQGZoQ92twfUvbzqGwu__xLn+BYOkHPZY_YT1pFrbA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPWm=eW8RgrG1CMEAMN4GeiMjZecFvNtZB_Y4rZNeofWSD0=Wg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADm_WcYCUHs9Qe_T6WJOCUSK6stXYD8v6z5JcGHfRMURoOSFTA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABm2gDq3JyZx0QCRDbcNSLSOBKdpi4h_7VN1XL8N42U38+eBAA@mail.gmail.com>
	<55B113AF.40500@thinlink.com>
	<CABm2gDp5-D3r=0rbq28-h8ewyHY8Rj9B0AFjO1fWfyuUEDMMfg@mail.gmail.com>
	<55B1DB84.6070001@thinlink.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2015 11:24:01 +0200
Message-ID: <CABm2gDqPvK8_eoMxv2hnVHw6H=xXdeugzTPJZEPUcwmpn-ZSKQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
To: Tom Harding <tomh@thinlink.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e011600028dea8d051b9b9080
Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin Core and hard forks
Precedence: list

--089e011600028dea8d051b9b9080
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Jul 24, 2015 8:30 AM, "Tom Harding" <tomh@thinlink.com> wrote:
>
> On 7/23/2015 10:51 AM, Jorge Tim=C3=B3n wrote:
> > We know perfectly well that the system will need to eventually be
> > sustained by fees.
>
> Fee revenue can rise just as easily without increased BTC fee rates.
>
> Two avenues that are just as effective: increased exchange rate,
> increased number of fee-paying transactions.  Neither of these avenues
> benefits from increased "fee pressure" (scarcity of block space).
>

Why do you expect users to "increase the number of fee-paying transactions"
if their free transactions reliably get mined relatively fast?
And if it's good that they pay fees, why is not good when the reason they
do it is because there's limited space in the block? Is user's paying fees
soon a good thing or the "catastrophe" we need to avoid by rising the block
size, what is it? Or is there something else wrong with having a limit
other than "fees will hurt short-term adoption"? I'm confused about your
position now...

Regarding "increasing the exchange rate" it would be really nice to just
push a button and double bitcoin's price just before the next subsidy
halving, but unfortunately that's something out of our control.

--089e011600028dea8d051b9b9080
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<p dir=3D"ltr"><br>
On Jul 24, 2015 8:30 AM, &quot;Tom Harding&quot; &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:tomh=
@thinlink.com">tomh@thinlink.com</a>&gt; wrote:<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; On 7/23/2015 10:51 AM, Jorge Tim=C3=B3n wrote:<br>
&gt; &gt; We know perfectly well that the system will need to eventually be=
<br>
&gt; &gt; sustained by fees.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; Fee revenue can rise just as easily without increased BTC fee rates.<b=
r>
&gt;<br>
&gt; Two avenues that are just as effective: increased exchange rate,<br>
&gt; increased number of fee-paying transactions.=C2=A0 Neither of these av=
enues<br>
&gt; benefits from increased &quot;fee pressure&quot; (scarcity of block sp=
ace).<br>
&gt;</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">Why do you expect users to &quot;increase the number of fee-=
paying transactions&quot; if their free transactions reliably get mined rel=
atively fast?<br>
And if it&#39;s good that they pay fees, why is not good when the reason th=
ey do it is because there&#39;s limited space in the block? Is user&#39;s p=
aying fees soon a good thing or the &quot;catastrophe&quot; we need to avoi=
d by rising the block size, what is it? Or is there something else wrong wi=
th having a limit other than &quot;fees will hurt short-term adoption&quot;=
? I&#39;m confused about your position now...</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">Regarding &quot;increasing the exchange rate&quot; it would =
be really nice to just push a button and double bitcoin&#39;s price just be=
fore the next subsidy halving, but unfortunately that&#39;s something out o=
f our control.</p>

--089e011600028dea8d051b9b9080--