Message-ID: <554C3FB8.6000309@thinlink.com>
Date: Thu, 07 May 2015 21:46:48 -0700
From: Tom Harding <tomh@thinlink.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64;
	rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
References: <554A91BE.6060105@bluematt.me>	<CANEZrP3wGWHdz+ut6pvke5TJJsc1rTFt8sn2KziX35oL5LAsyg@mail.gmail.com>	<CABm2gDpDvk2VsQ+mJ-BoeBKmvu9jBXNujZEFKuCStRNjFL6VOA@mail.gmail.com>	<5049F137-E123-47F6-9D24-FE51B92629FF@hashingit.com>
	<CABm2gDpceBQ=SqH-axgbMgOGOf8cOe1wLyJgJY5TEFu4taiNwA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABm2gDpceBQ=SqH-axgbMgOGOf8cOe1wLyJgJY5TEFu4taiNwA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Block Size Increase
Precedence: list

On 5/7/2015 6:40 AM, Jorge Tim=F3n wrote:
>> Known: There's a major problem looming for miners at the next block re=
ward
>> halving. Many are already in a bad place and without meaningful fees t=
hen
>> sans a 2x increase in the USD:BTC ratio then many will simply have to =
leave
>> the network, increasing centralisation risks. There seems to be a fair=
ly
>> pervasive assumption that the 300-ish MW of power that they currently =
use is
>> going to pay for itself (ignoring capital and other operating costs).
> I take this as an argument for increasing fee competition and thus,
> against increasing the block size.
>

That doesn't follow.  Supposing average fees per transaction decrease
with block size, total fees / block reach an optimum somewhere.  While
the optimum might be at infinity, it's certainly not at zero, and it's
not at all obvious that the optimum is at a block size lower than 1MB.