Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9A882F93 for ; Sun, 30 Aug 2015 06:38:31 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-wi0-f171.google.com (mail-wi0-f171.google.com [209.85.212.171]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 17C9A163 for ; Sun, 30 Aug 2015 06:38:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: by wicne3 with SMTP id ne3so48113538wic.0 for ; Sat, 29 Aug 2015 23:38:29 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=uUuEXnhC4bvIq/S+udT2DzTnW3UopfywBBIDLAODzoo=; b=ZfhItpJe0xPbIWrBTLpGY4gwJ5qwYKb8pENMDfvBaH2qn2micA8phbiHcQY6pGPBKu K/6h4uCJTsJprpc8sDETGcgOGAY/N/JP/CAyQUEqBykz7taUAP3VV1haQzJFaZEoKmt5 bDwAvXDOl8dhCgqwOz2k9JJDq+3ANz7ysz8Z+5vy/Gp36i5fpuYXd6WNYdVVLzsruFw+ i5EI6aW0tOaF3FhvF6/Fw34fE9gdXt98Ff9ZRGyVDNH808bfafbxothBOVmOIBzjOv5f l4BGvv62y6z5IHBuHUNeTlCnkQ9wxUCDGw3crjB5ULe4+VoiaQOkst/K+yBrHT4BNCNg HQ1w== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.194.190.110 with SMTP id gp14mr21978267wjc.76.1440916709413; Sat, 29 Aug 2015 23:38:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.28.13.5 with HTTP; Sat, 29 Aug 2015 23:38:29 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <5CC48639-11D0-4682-BF82-443286C8E58D@gmx.com> Date: Sun, 30 Aug 2015 08:38:29 +0200 Message-ID: From: Adam Ritter To: "bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org Dev" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, 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 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Your Gmaxwell exchange 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: Sun, 30 Aug 2015 06:38:31 -0000 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).