Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 429EE268 for ; Thu, 30 Jul 2015 14:57:30 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-pa0-f41.google.com (mail-pa0-f41.google.com [209.85.220.41]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BFE7CF7 for ; Thu, 30 Jul 2015 14:57:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: by pachj5 with SMTP id hj5so24752366pac.3 for ; Thu, 30 Jul 2015 07:57:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=n3k4cfSsvxE97pgxrRZxELesav23x1cQ+fDlHuNtSXI=; b=D8MgvGK3VmjKWpFsANZZhGuy8bgaNrosHWt74icx753HHoeHUgPCkBV5kLpMbsdsNa PruuilGyJjgCy+l4GAZ52mQgAc7dn1ZqAMbYz8ONHyCwPs5OFK9ZQbFubfZL/e0t9BAa jrAyfH01UXvsxQqrLFXzRvLuseclloWS4m3683GdhgEL9+TdQO+9M7BHNd9gzn3q5UWz doqZiVhtwiB8uVrXghSMoLKA9STzw6Foczo3uzKhBCec5WG7j8lU/hiLS8oq63wIADN5 gSNEGexmE7yV1GciA6oi7bwrFDoATfkEs+rPV0LyKvCfTIWksaAq43dGDHi5xq5BYd6Y sUEg== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQl+QB0LQpa3IoKn1PdWIw8og6JUZ9fD0mbL6BiDnidMD2h87lheKz2+sZyDF2wQoick4J+8 X-Received: by 10.66.158.3 with SMTP id wq3mr106667501pab.38.1438268249176; Thu, 30 Jul 2015 07:57:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.89] (99-8-65-117.lightspeed.davlca.sbcglobal.net. [99.8.65.117]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id c5sm2625250pds.87.2015.07.30.07.57.26 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 30 Jul 2015 07:57:27 -0700 (PDT) To: Dave Hudson References: <543015348.4948849.1438178962054.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> <55B959A2.9020402@sky-ip.org> <55BA2329.1080700@thinlink.com> <58D8CEFE-2763-452E-B731-DDF7AFD77677@hashingit.com> From: Tom Harding X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110 Message-ID: <55BA3B57.2060101@thinlink.com> Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 07:57:27 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <58D8CEFE-2763-452E-B731-DDF7AFD77677@hashingit.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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@lists.linuxfoundation.org Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] =?utf-8?q?R=C4=83spuns=3A_Personal_opinion_on_the_f?= =?utf-8?q?ee_market_from_a_worried_local_trader?= 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: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 14:57:30 -0000 Yes. So far, the transaction count factor has completely dominated the per-tx fee factor. This fact should be of great interest to miners. On 7/30/2015 7:25 AM, Dave Hudson wrote: > >> On 30 Jul 2015, at 06:14, Tom Harding via bitcoin-dev >> > > wrote: >> >> Another empirical fact also needs explaining. Why have average fees *as >> measured in BTC* risen during the times of highest public interest in >> bitcoin? This happened without block size pressure, and it is not an >> exchange rate effect -- these are raw BTC fees: >> >> https://blockchain.info/charts/transaction-fees?timespan=all&daysAverageString=7 > > I've not published any new figures for about 8 months (will try to do > that this weekend), but the thing that that chart doesn't show is > what's actually happening to fees per transaction. Here's a chart that > does: http://hashingit.com/analysis/35-the-future-of-bitcoin-transaction-fees > > The data is also taken from blockchain.info so it's apples-for-apples. > It shows that far from a fees going up they spent 3 years dropping. I > just ran a new chart and the decline in fees continued until about 8 > weeks when the "stress tests" first occurred. Even so, they're still > below the level from the end of 2013. By comparison the total > transaction volume is up about 2.4x to 2.5x (don't have the exact number). > >> ... more evidence that conclusively refutes the conjecture that a >> production quota is necessary for a "functioning fee market." A >> production quota merely pushes up fees. We have a functioning market, >> and so far, it shows that wider bitcoin usage is even more effective >> than a quota at pushing up fees. > > I think it's equally easy to argue (from the same data) that wider > adoption has actually caused wallet users to become much more > effective at fee selection. Miners (as expected, assuming that they > hadn't formed a cartel) have continued to accept whatever fees are > available, no matter how small. Only where there has been an element > of scarcity have we actually seen miners do anything but take whatever > is offered. > > Clearly history is not an accurate indicator of what might happen in > the future, but it seems difficult to argue that there has been any > sort of fee market emerge to date (other than as a result of scarcity > during the stress tests). >