Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A9CAEBC8 for ; Thu, 30 Mar 2017 16:14:28 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-wr0-f176.google.com (mail-wr0-f176.google.com [209.85.128.176]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2506F180 for ; Thu, 30 Mar 2017 16:14:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-wr0-f176.google.com with SMTP id w43so67131112wrb.0 for ; Thu, 30 Mar 2017 09:14:26 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=T3j5bDSuEg87Ui1vypRaN1t60kbVATd1qpz3vlhyQI8=; b=AqCCPvSvUdQXycOwv+xJrt4RrslXbOjW4+W+A8J25w4888I5LdwlJGLnw+MK0aQ22E 91mtpGnKnqE7Zhm3WYObXxI+g3EvhXnJS3rE3TqhDYIxnqJp8h15CWWxN5vAmw279YTS VbCM96XuYVmX/87ap5/BxDz1aWMWWdk5+ZhS2yvhpMlFgLsRlcnz7dbn5TCds8Pk0CJo TVTF4qBEitwC0oj7qNnCowbD+OfftSoFEs0kF3CDjcD/sMlT1KiA8H06TyhsDuT9DrI/ 7PXXajq8fEjGTWXP/1dFZEqajLmeHgfMazZ/7IW5deSg22lmI0JA4Oi8asdadLdIWRMC 5WxA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=T3j5bDSuEg87Ui1vypRaN1t60kbVATd1qpz3vlhyQI8=; b=k/chXoZVafaoyYP9D/Dhy0zWqg2/uC7cxWvwL12mNB7mKVXu8ZHKfPvJ8lsz0IZY1u FQC9XOL1pxnVi/65oIcNQxEptkY8IbEgHk9gCfCqjbrSG86NYatZ99ronPUgF12ufJw/ RL5s6l5IrYPkw98X5kFRMlv78Q1DAertfkqVkDpJSN35dfMh7To4Eot5PhhGmO1AEV6c 5fG4w8eTKCHG9omT7a5YslUdUbHJaIXglENCTbeUn+Rg2PwVO8mS/qJ5Jsd5tD79pUWs TFThXU1isTriNybXVb4qj9pwVevcG/pYhpswWwSxhauOUIIFfXm0xnM/LRHcuffAy8WH zEQA== X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H2SG/dLJkF/maYA7k2fYAaZEwdK/YBUJGFI2N5fLBtWWs3PtHKjQA/W7HTo5R/CsXMLSQUiXHnplz2c/w== X-Received: by 10.28.139.134 with SMTP id n128mr4138646wmd.132.1490890465568; Thu, 30 Mar 2017 09:14:25 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.28.55.9 with HTTP; Thu, 30 Mar 2017 09:14:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.28.55.9 with HTTP; Thu, 30 Mar 2017 09:14:24 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: David Vorick Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2017 12:14:24 -0400 Message-ID: To: Bitcoin Dev , Tom Harding Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11441e4a996b92054bf4fc05 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, HTML_MESSAGE, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE 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] High fees / centralization X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2017 16:14:28 -0000 --001a11441e4a996b92054bf4fc05 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Mar 30, 2017 12:04 PM, "Tom Harding via bitcoin-dev" < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: Raystonn, Your logic is very hard to dispute. An important special case is small miners. Small miners use pools exactly because they want smaller, more frequent payments. Rising fees force them to take payments less frequently, and will only tend to make more of them give up. With fees rising superlinearly, this centralizing effect is much stronger than the oft-cited worry of small miners joining large pools to decrease orphan rates. Miners get paid on average once every ten minutes. The size of fees and the number of fee transactions does not change the payout rate. Further, we are very far from the point (in my appraisal) where fees are high enough to block home users from using the network. Bitcoin has many high-value use cases such as savings. We should not throw away the core innovation of monetary sovereignty in pursuit of supporting 0.1% of the world's daily transactions. --001a11441e4a996b92054bf4fc05 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Mar 30, 2017 12:04 PM, "Tom Harding via bitc= oin-dev" <= bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
<= div style=3D"font-family:sans-serif" dir=3D"auto">Raystonn,=C2=A0

Your logic is very hard to dispute. An imp= ortant special case is small miners.

Small miners use pools exactly because they want smaller, more frequent= payments.

Rising fees force them= to take payments less frequently, and will only tend to make more of them = give up.

=
With fees rising superli= nearly, this centralizing effect is much stronger than the oft-cited worry = of small miners joining large pools to decrease orphan rates.

= Miners get paid on average once every ten minutes. The size of fees and the= number of fee transactions does not change the payout rate.

Further, we are very far from the poi= nt (in my appraisal) where fees are high enough to block home users from us= ing the network.

Bitcoin= has many high-value use cases such as savings. We should not throw away th= e core innovation of monetary sovereignty in pursuit of supporting 0.1% of = the world's daily transactions.

--001a11441e4a996b92054bf4fc05--