1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
|
Return-Path: <dave@hashingit.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 944D23C8
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 31 Jul 2015 14:29:23 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from heron.directrouter.co.uk (heron.directrouter.co.uk
[89.145.69.228])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2FD1E11E
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 31 Jul 2015 14:29:22 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from 50-76-32-109-ip-static.hfc.comcastbusiness.net
([50.76.32.109]:49591 helo=[10.0.7.215])
by heron.directrouter.co.uk with esmtpsa (TLSv1:DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA:256)
(Exim 4.85) (envelope-from <dave@hashingit.com>)
id 1ZLBJH-0005KE-Gz; Fri, 31 Jul 2015 14:29:19 +0000
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary=Apple-Mail-EF77BA8D-028E-4364-BDD2-6EBB3BBF83D7
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
From: Dave <dave@hashingit.com>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (12H143)
In-Reply-To: <BLU170-W18CE2AF1E26D65DC74401EC68A0@phx.gbl>
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2015 07:29:14 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <8FAC5D92-4541-4E3A-8911-90CECA96D174@hashingit.com>
References: <BLU170-W18CE2AF1E26D65DC74401EC68A0@phx.gbl>
To: Un Ix <slashdevnull@hotmail.com>
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse,
please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - heron.directrouter.co.uk
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - hashingit.com
X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: heron.directrouter.co.uk: authenticated_id:
dave@hashingit.com
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,HTML_MESSAGE,
MIME_QP_LONG_LINE 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 <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=E2=80=8F?=
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2015 14:29:23 -0000
--Apple-Mail-EF77BA8D-028E-4364-BDD2-6EBB3BBF83D7
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> On 31 Jul 2015, at 06:59, Un Ix via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfo=
undation.org> wrote:
>=20
> +1 on the comments below by Thomas.=20
>=20
> "Fee market" is not a binary option, either on or off. Like all markets i=
t exists in varying degrees over time and with more or less influence on the=
process of which it is part of. As it stands now, and likely for another d=
ecade at least, the fee per tx constitutes a very, very weak market signal f=
or the miners since it makes up less than 0.5% of the rewards paid for minin=
g a full block. This is the normal and expected scenario, aimed at driving u=
se of Bitcoin as widely and cheaply as possible so that network effects will=
cement Bitcoin for the future, for all users.
>=20
> As a comparison, how many people would have taken up using email if there h=
ad been a per-message fee and hourly sending limits with only the highest-fe=
e messages being delivered? And how would it look if the email protocol deve=
lopers imposing fees & hourly sending limits were pushing hard for use of an=
other email-delivery protocol on top of the existing one?
>=20
How would email have looked if it required 300 MW of power to support it for=
"free" for 10 years?
In practice email was never free- it was paid for by the payments users made=
to ISPs. ISPs paid for email and network infrastructure from that.
The equivalent analogy here would be to drop fees completely and pay a speci=
fic miner to mine all of your transactions as a monthly subscription (which o=
f course doesn't work in a non-permission-based network).
Miners have real (huge) costs - they will be in a lot of pain with reward ha=
lving if a few model does not replace that. That in turn poses a huge risk o=
f smaller miners shutting down, which in turn centralises things even more. I=
would argue that the lack of pool diversity and thus lack of block makers i=
s already the single biggest risk for a decentralised system; avoiding the i=
ssue of fees just accelerates this.=
--Apple-Mail-EF77BA8D-028E-4364-BDD2-6EBB3BBF83D7
Content-Type: text/html;
charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<html><head><meta http-equiv=3D"content-type" content=3D"text/html; charset=3D=
utf-8"></head><body dir=3D"auto"><div><br></div><div>On 31 Jul 2015, at 06:5=
9, Un Ix via bitcoin-dev <<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfounda=
tion.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>> wrote:<br><br></div>=
<blockquote type=3D"cite"><div>
<div dir=3D"ltr">
<div dir=3D"ltr">
<div dir=3D"ltr">
<div dir=3D"ltr">
<div dir=3D"ltr">
<style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 12pt;
font-family:Calibri
}
--></style>
<div dir=3D"ltr">+1 on the comments below by Thomas. <br><br>"Fee market" is=
not a=20
binary option, either on or off. Like all markets it exists in varying=
=20
degrees over time and with more or less influence on the process of which it=
is=20
part of. As it stands now, and likely for another decade at least, the=
=20
fee per tx constitutes a very, very weak market signal for the miners since i=
t=20
makes up less than 0.5% of the rewards paid for mining a full block. This is=
the normal and expected scenario, aimed at driving use of Bitcoin=20
as widely and cheaply as possible so that network effects will cement=20
Bitcoin for the future, for all users.<br><br>As a comparison, how many peop=
le would have
taken up using email if there had been a per-message fee and hourly=20
sending limits with only the highest-fee messages being delivered? And=20
how would it look if the email protocol developers imposing fees=20
& hourly sending limits were pushing hard for use of another email-deliv=
ery protocol on
top of the existing one?<br><br></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><=
/blockquote><div><span style=3D"background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">H=
ow would email have looked if it required 300 MW of power to support it for "=
free" for 10 years?</span></div><div><span style=3D"background-color: rgba(2=
55, 255, 255, 0);"><br></span></div><div><span style=3D"background-color: rg=
ba(255, 255, 255, 0);">In practice email was never free- it was paid for by t=
he payments users made to ISPs. ISPs paid for email and network infrastructu=
re from that.</span></div><div><span style=3D"background-color: rgba(255, 25=
5, 255, 0);"><br></span></div><div><span style=3D"background-color: rgba(255=
, 255, 255, 0);">The equivalent analogy here would be to drop fees completel=
y and pay a specific miner to mine all of your transactions as a monthly sub=
scription (which of course doesn't work in a non-permission-based network).<=
/span></div><div><span style=3D"background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><=
br></span></div><div><span style=3D"background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0)=
;">Miners have real (huge) costs - they will be in a lot of pain with reward=
halving if a few model does not replace that. That in turn poses a huge ris=
k of smaller miners shutting down, which in turn centralises things even mor=
e. I would argue that the lack of pool diversity and thus lack of block make=
rs is already the single biggest risk for a decentralised system; avoiding t=
he issue of fees just accelerates this.</span></div></body></html>=
--Apple-Mail-EF77BA8D-028E-4364-BDD2-6EBB3BBF83D7--
|
