Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1YqPog-0008EP-Qz for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 07 May 2015 17:42:34 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of petertodd.org designates 62.13.148.93 as permitted sender) client-ip=62.13.148.93; envelope-from=pete@petertodd.org; helo=outmail148093.authsmtp.net; Received: from outmail148093.authsmtp.net ([62.13.148.93]) by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) id 1YqPof-0005Yf-Bu for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 07 May 2015 17:42:34 +0000 Received: from mail-c237.authsmtp.com (mail-c237.authsmtp.com [62.13.128.237]) by punt16.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id t47HgQ1l002246; Thu, 7 May 2015 18:42:26 +0100 (BST) Received: from savin.petertodd.org (75-119-251-161.dsl.teksavvy.com [75.119.251.161]) (authenticated bits=128) by mail.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id t47HgLmQ035138 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 7 May 2015 18:42:23 +0100 (BST) Date: Thu, 7 May 2015 13:42:20 -0400 From: Peter Todd To: Gavin Andresen Message-ID: <20150507174220.GC6033@savin.petertodd.org> References: <554A91BE.6060105@bluematt.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="L6iaP+gRLNZHKoI4" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Server-Quench: 6b9fa1d5-f4e0-11e4-9f74-002590a135d3 X-AuthReport-Spam: If SPAM / abuse - report it at: http://www.authsmtp.com/abuse X-AuthRoute: OCd2Yg0TA1ZNQRgX IjsJECJaVQIpKltL GxAVKBZePFsRUQkR aQdMdgUUFVQNAgsB AmMbWlxeVF97W2c7 bA9PbARUfEhLXhtr VklWR1pVCwQmRRgG fkliD3hydABHe3Y+ ZENiW3YVWhZzIxd8 FktJQ2lTZXphaTUb TUkOcAdJcANIexZF O1F8UScOLwdSbGoL NQ4vNDcwO3BTJTpY RgYVKF8UXXNDNDo7 TBNKJjQ9EAUkQS4p IhU9JzYB X-Authentic-SMTP: 61633532353630.1024:706 X-AuthFastPath: 0 (Was 255) X-AuthSMTP-Origin: 75.119.251.161/587 X-AuthVirus-Status: No virus detected - but ensure you scan with your own anti-virus system. X-Spam-Score: -1.5 (-) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for sender-domain -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record -0.0 AWL AWL: Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address X-Headers-End: 1YqPof-0005Yf-Bu Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Block Size Increase X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 May 2015 17:42:34 -0000 --L6iaP+gRLNZHKoI4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, May 07, 2015 at 12:59:13PM -0400, Gavin Andresen wrote: > Fee dynamics seems to come up over and over again in these discussions, > with lots of talk and theorizing. >=20 > I hope some data on what is happening with fees right now might help, so I > wrote another blog post (with graphs, which can't be done in a mailing li= st > post): > http://gavinandresen.ninja/the-myth-of-not-full-blocks >=20 > We don=E2=80=99t need 100% full one megabyte blocks to start to learn abo= ut what is > likely to happen as transaction volume rises and/or the one megabyte block > size limit is raised. Sounds like you're saying we are bumping up against a 1MB limit. However other than the occasional user who has sent a transaction with an extremely low/no fee, what evidence do we have that this is or is not actually impacting meaningful usage form the user's point of view? Do we have evidence as to how users are coping? e.g. do they send time sensitive transactiosn with higher fees? Are people conciously moving low value transactions off the blockchain? Equally, what about the story with companies? You of course are an advisor to Coinbase, and could give us some insight into the type of planning payment processors/wallets are doing. For instance, does Coinbase have any plans to work with other wallet providers/payment processors to aggregate fund transfers between wallet providers - an obvious payment channel application. --=20 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org 00000000000000000232164c96eaa6bf7cbc3dc61ea055840715b5a81ee8f6be --L6iaP+gRLNZHKoI4 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQGrBAEBCACVBQJVS6P4XhSAAAAAABUAQGJsb2NraGFzaEBiaXRjb2luLm9yZzAw MDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwMDAxNjg1NTc0MDY4NDNhZDUxNDBiN2JhMTJiOWNjMTZjZDhm YzkxOThjZTY3MGRlNDgvFIAAAAAAFQARcGthLWFkZHJlc3NAZ251cGcub3JncGV0 ZUBwZXRlcnRvZC5vcmcACgkQJIFAPaXwkfuo0QgAtzxTANu/W0EUNDmwuQDd8NEY DOD9Bo0Ut7R+nPfj0L+Kv5J+sQeIS/xT01/k82+ypR8/5VD/Pwy8UoGpeDPLuI2/ FgxP0DQXZQUuic6DAsAV8JodNkjhxQ+PHvA7H1pVw8aMpe952QV68w7MhpwEmgvF AJv+XEZXNir2f3nrBZ3guLrmxAG4ki136uyfoZtge3Bu7ydMAoqnvqBodAHE71+e 1zSGaJQo/Zi7MgHHnR6cMJ47HBSs9Swug/lM/NtsXyDMineccQ96aIPIi19Hy0io /WmbVCNC5CF9Sh0UZEm1Vb20vyueqsFWTJJUQZl5D9etqNniW/ARJ6J6QkxaSQ== =RS/j -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --L6iaP+gRLNZHKoI4--