MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAAS2fgShF=2vtPrKtXmdA454s_xpJbxSB0SFBsstniHB8WtGzQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAEgR2PFB3h_8fr=d8HegRSD0XdooimhFKtLR4vKr2QXv+EwBfQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<AD284610-4F40-445C-A074-CC94EDFFCBA8@gmx.com>
	<CAAS2fgRs5NVM2nHKNXbgMJa51tDq-6ZBc6XfaScyP45UPWTW_g@mail.gmail.com>
	<5CC48639-11D0-4682-BF82-443286C8E58D@gmx.com>
	<CAAS2fgShF=2vtPrKtXmdA454s_xpJbxSB0SFBsstniHB8WtGzQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 2015 08:38:29 +0200
Message-ID: <CAKuKjyUpJOMdDCjGmo1tYc6sA3r69VAXpvzhMJ7EZSHtb9C9Sw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Adam Ritter <aritter@gmail.com>
To: "bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org Dev"
	<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Your Gmaxwell exchange
Precedence: list

I don't really see any problem with the paper:
All it states is that having the assumption that miners don't
centralize, transaction fees don't go to zero even without the
blocksize limit. I think we can accept this as a nice academic
research, and I believe that it's true.
Still, it doesn't have anything that is practical for me as an user of
the Bitcoin network (I use it for storing long-term purchase value, as
most of the people who I know): it doesn't help me if I still need to
pay transaction fees after the blocksize limit is gone. My (and other
users') main concern is about centralization, which has nothing to do
with transaction fees. I would be OK with $100 transaction fee as
well, as long as the network is fair and secure (which comes from
decentralization).