Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 69AC55AA for ; Thu, 21 Dec 2017 22:18:39 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-pf0-f173.google.com (mail-pf0-f173.google.com [209.85.192.173]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 92CF93D9 for ; Thu, 21 Dec 2017 22:18:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-pf0-f173.google.com with SMTP id n6so14521668pfa.4 for ; Thu, 21 Dec 2017 14:18:38 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:to:references:in-reply-to:subject:date:message-id:mime-version :thread-index:content-language; bh=WH6SIbyAj4EqRK/+AVL9KHSyDkjPHpesjyPaoM1I9j4=; b=gaWwJraQMFDj/WJ6WjGqqgDPSj3jMag/zzywd0Eh/1DKTUjl2k9RSd4FwXMuXcViUu 3W3BQk32NmzUdVW5SawpoOvHaclNLDVr5LMrVk8C4iYvyyG7VkzDPl3oOhbW9KG38EZC xV57iSmlatUpPFZ1JUJYVnVUQ7bbjuForcbsfBUMqa4Shoj1WQHqbv350Hbf0oTgOmJC 1Ej6kKFUpLzmhLXR0nudfsJ1pjgAA2kzzpPnNqG+nsEO/4rMPvU/j4htvVGTg042jql+ GNLmHJrYfvAJhSavCQCf+Wu84ue8kaE5htbpAmnbz+4bxZIjwv5dw9evu918V4uQmwDC 6XYQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:references:in-reply-to:subject:date :message-id:mime-version:thread-index:content-language; bh=WH6SIbyAj4EqRK/+AVL9KHSyDkjPHpesjyPaoM1I9j4=; b=rMr6rXjOuM9weddUQ/nfpiDoxbB1maHY/wGVo1VvrceQg97568x/oTGYxhos+Mkvqd 04EfKCmh6y8qCWcR9okvtRGmpIKChISDE83dUKQnIVbpAI5I8TiIUDCpUS8VLHMvQqIF rzykl5OFqseI/dFSczGZZfWUWqoT2X82nH6HbkZwNEnC/5xcdLemq9EMTjkrl5eMXBhW hlJG7LxVdnI3rdkwCBbusYn6FtwgNnuyXLvTGA/8S0C9gtVRQiM31zCc2Mx374WivbFJ ci4xBU2wjLqojAAQ9rKrCWaajIu40UsRssR4bPXdoE7d4ciTE0ZQQw/vtWoM2BgMVXC7 HBdg== X-Gm-Message-State: AKGB3mK2vPeTo6QJgzTH0rFB8jC99eVPAl6DbuWwGbkXlaiFZPjejzQ8 PtYiNi7kAm6qRRMULTy37JegqMbo X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBos99/9bihJYgmk4JklTSPAdWH2Q3I917TROVN0aSCxyCZQoAURllLqERqekZ7JwQwywu8TQ/g== X-Received: by 10.101.73.2 with SMTP id p2mr1695482pgs.107.1513894717881; Thu, 21 Dec 2017 14:18:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from PC624 ([12.17.138.216]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id b127sm34084127pgc.70.2017.12.21.14.18.36 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 21 Dec 2017 14:18:37 -0800 (PST) From: "Jim Rogers" To: "'Jameson Lopp'" , "'Bitcoin Protocol Discussion'" References: In-Reply-To: Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2017 13:18:32 -0900 Message-ID: <002d01d37aa9$a513db40$ef3b91c0$@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_002E_01D37A5E.352D92D0" X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0 Thread-Index: AQD3yV1mlUzXxzoBKOUW+y4fiFBoGgGxCEd+pPg3TgA= Content-Language: en-us X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT,FREEMAIL_FROM, HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,URIBL_RED autolearn=no version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 21 Dec 2017 22:31:45 +0000 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Total fees have almost crossed the block reward 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, 21 Dec 2017 22:18:39 -0000 This is a multipart message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_002E_01D37A5E.352D92D0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable It seems that the exchanges are doing everything that they can to slow = things. Not only have the major exchanges not implemented segwit yet, = but a bigger, less addressed issue is that they have start applying = transfer limits on crypto as well as cash. They do not respond for = months to requests to upgrade limits, and this results in many = transactions instead of one to transfer crypto to cold storage devices.=20 =20 These issues may self-resolve over time, since I think they are all = impacted by KYC and the explosive growth.=20 =20 =20 From: bitcoin-dev-bounces@lists.linuxfoundation.org = [mailto:bitcoin-dev-bounces@lists.linuxfoundation.org] On Behalf Of = Jameson Lopp via bitcoin-dev Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2017 1:03 PM To: Melvin Carvalho ; Bitcoin Protocol = Discussion Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Total fees have almost crossed the block = reward =20 I'd hope that the incentives are in place to encourage high volume = senders to be more efficient in their use of block space by batching = transactions and implementing SegWit, though this may not be the case = for providers that pass transaction fees along to their users. =20 We've been trying to be more proactive about outreach regarding = efficient use of block space to our own customers at BitGo - when we = break down the cost savings of implementing a new technique, it = generally helps to hasten their adoption. I suspect that in many cases = this is an issue of education - we should be more proactive in calling = out inefficient uses of block space. =20 Good resources to bookmark and share: =20 https://bitcointechtalk.com/saving-up-to-80-on-bitcoin-transaction-fees-b= y-batching-payments-4147ab7009fb =20 https://blog.zebpay.com/how-zebpay-reduced-bitcoin-transaction-fees-a9e24= c788598 =20 - Jameson =20 On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 4:30 PM, Melvin Carvalho via bitcoin-dev = > wrote: I asked adam back at hcpp how the block chain would be secured in the = long term, once the reward goes away. The base idea has always been = that fees would replace the block reward. At that time fees were approximately 10% of the block reward, but have = now reached 45%, with 50% potentially being crossed soon https://fork.lol/reward/feepct While this bodes well for the long term security of the coin, I think = there is some legitimate concern that the fee per tx is prohibitive for = some use cases, at this point in the adoption curve. Observations of segwit adoption show around 10% at this point http://segwit.party/charts/ Watching the mempool shows that the congestion is at a peak, though it's = quite possible this will come down over the long weekend. I wonder if = this is of concern to some. https://dedi.jochen-hoenicke.de/queue/more/#24h I thought these data points may be of interest and are mainly FYI. = Though if further discussion is deemed appropriate, it would be = interesting to hear thoughts. _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org = =20 https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev =20 ------=_NextPart_000_002E_01D37A5E.352D92D0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

It seems = that the exchanges are doing everything that they can to slow things. = Not only have the major exchanges not implemented segwit yet, but a = bigger, less addressed issue is that they have start applying transfer = limits on crypto as well as cash. They do not respond for months to = requests to upgrade limits, and this results in many transactions = instead of one to transfer crypto to cold storage devices. =

 

These issues may self-resolve over time, since I think = they are all impacted by KYC and the explosive growth.

 

 

From: = bitcoin-dev-bounces@lists.linuxfoundation.org = [mailto:bitcoin-dev-bounces@lists.linuxfoundation.org] On Behalf Of = Jameson Lopp via bitcoin-dev
Sent: Thursday, December 21, = 2017 1:03 PM
To: Melvin Carvalho = <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>; Bitcoin Protocol Discussion = <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: = [bitcoin-dev] Total fees have almost crossed the block = reward

 

I'd hope that the incentives are in place to encourage = high volume senders to be more efficient in their use of block space by = batching transactions and implementing SegWit, though this may not be = the case for providers that pass transaction fees along to their = users.

 

We've been trying to be more proactive about outreach = regarding efficient use of block space to our own customers at BitGo - = when we break down the cost savings of implementing a new technique, it = generally helps to hasten their adoption. I suspect that in many cases = this is an issue of education - we should be more proactive in calling = out inefficient uses of block space.

 

Good resources to bookmark and = share:

 

 

 

- = Jameson

 

On Thu, = Dec 21, 2017 at 4:30 PM, Melvin Carvalho via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> = wrote:

<= p class=3DMsoNormal style=3D'margin-bottom:12.0pt'>I asked adam back at = hcpp how the block chain would be secured in the long term, once the = reward goes away.  The base idea has always been that fees would = replace the block reward.

At that time fees were approximately 10% = of the block reward, but have now reached 45%, with 50% potentially = being crossed soon

https://fork.lol/reward/feepct

=

While this bodes = well for the long term security of the coin, I think there is some = legitimate concern that the fee per tx is prohibitive for some use = cases, at this point in the adoption curve.

Observations of segwit = adoption show around 10% at this point

http://segwit.party/charts/

Watching the mempool = shows that the congestion is at a peak, though it's quite possible this = will come down over the long weekend.  I wonder if this is of = concern to some.

https://dedi.jochen-hoenicke.de/queue/more/#24h

I thought these data points may be = of interest and are mainly FYI.  Though if further discussion is = deemed appropriate, it would be interesting to hear = thoughts.


______________________________________= _________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.l= inuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc= oin-dev

 

------=_NextPart_000_002E_01D37A5E.352D92D0--