From benjamin.l.cordes at gmail.com Tue Oct 27 09:46:45 2015 From: benjamin.l.cordes at gmail.com (Benjamin) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 10:46:45 +0100 Subject: [Lightning-dev] Lightning fees vs miner fees In-Reply-To: References: <20151027054029.GA6185@navy> <20151027055311.GA16710@navy> Message-ID: >> But I think it's actually a tractable question, so we can probably actually work out numbers! The whole point of a market would be that you get users to work out "the numbers". If Bitcoin would have a market then capacity would be set by its use and more demand would trigger supply, and vice versa. Fixing that in code is inevitably going to lead to bad results. So these discussions about blocksize and capacity went fundamentally going in the wrong direction. There is no sensible algorithm to determining prices of anything without using the input of people in the market. Its not really clear Bitcoin could build in a mechanism to handle that. It would be advantageous if fees would be variable by transaction size. Bitcoin should handle large nominal volumes and low transaction volumes and a possible second layer handle low nominal values and high transaction volumes. So it's good to consider BTC amount transferred per bytes. The higher that number the better for Bitcoin's capacity. On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 10:38 AM, Pierre wrote: > Hello aj, > > This is very interesting, thanks! > > You seem to be considering that bitcoin tx and lightning tx are completely > independent, which is not entirely true because of anchor transactions. > While this is certainly a valid assumption, maybe it would be worth stating > it explicitely ? > > Cheers, > > Pierre > > _______________________________________________ > Lightning-dev mailing list > Lightning-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lightning-dev > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: