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
|
Return-Path: <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 27DC040D
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 30 Jul 2015 18:14:49 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-wi0-f176.google.com (mail-wi0-f176.google.com
[209.85.212.176])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9BB71185
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 30 Jul 2015 18:14:48 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by wicmv11 with SMTP id mv11so30953779wic.0
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 30 Jul 2015 11:14:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date
:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type;
bh=PrBvdhC4ozzUyLuMPtlW0I37VYiwL3c0dLpUoZgWssk=;
b=VylIOlTbvcB1iU8dOZtNunDBwuIodf/T9a8qugKZYb9cxVOpBq8MVTw8+EjUnnZU8w
K2WichkFaYmcg2emGbO6QThiTnADkwMFPVFy1vXl+E+XecENjUm5n79Y6esxq+K6OzPd
HC9bTjx/ZycP6LOSObQb5sQnAqWNM2vEwoV1uzWWx3Glkb3B0c/FIB+ceBxCHQFUCYEX
UIHsEuu58K/skJYfVI/yQPun6UOF1Q1OS2+VWZJ2zu+OTK2HSxBbVqnCnJ6zoI8cdmlB
JHsDq3l1YAcF+6FUj1CPnrAk54yxtXaP2BLVVCVmx+HTpcMTra3Tpu2OM8zP8yE7Z+jm
shaw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQl4CdrAbuOcp73R8m6NpyLlGHN/vjue1oRaXj8e+ALtSlm3gU3P0hjB6YnBC99XgvKzOFvB
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.194.187.170 with SMTP id ft10mr89764205wjc.26.1438280087149;
Thu, 30 Jul 2015 11:14:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.194.95.168 with HTTP; Thu, 30 Jul 2015 11:14:47 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <55BA2329.1080700@thinlink.com>
References: <CADZB0_ZgDMhVgCUh2PTAPDL7k_W8QGt_HLYdkwv_qQ5xEMn8HA@mail.gmail.com>
<543015348.4948849.1438178962054.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>
<COL131-DS3F7339BCCA36BEFD1755ACD8C0@phx.gbl>
<55B959A2.9020402@sky-ip.org>
<CAF_2MyVAXg9788gatEQ-t4=8rJxXdkf9DA45uF5_gksDUM6b=A@mail.gmail.com>
<CALqxMTHEknuwPW-uG3W9Fv1sQC54ud3zk4aLQaFGTTjAt7ghfA@mail.gmail.com>
<CAF_2MyXhhZyHSekOR0uTKndt8onEHqTJGnZwWFXoHw6xngidPA@mail.gmail.com>
<55BA2329.1080700@thinlink.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 20:14:47 +0200
Message-ID: <CABm2gDoh69a0335uLhwVndwwLiYtZEVdCvNsrCtHiRAVrSqkaQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
To: Tom Harding <tomh@thinlink.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,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
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?=
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: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 18:14:49 -0000
On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 3:14 PM, Tom Harding via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> On 7/29/2015 9:48 PM, Ryan Butler via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> ... more evidence that conclusively refutes the conjecture that a
> production quota is necessary for a "functioning fee market." A
> production quota merely pushes up fees. We have a functioning market,
> and so far, it shows that wider bitcoin usage is even more effective
> than a quota at pushing up fees.
The blocksize limit (your "production quota") is necessary for
decentralization, not for having a functioning fee market.
But I have the hope that hitting the limit would help with getting rid
of all that special-case or at least would encourage miners to
implement their own policies.
If we can agree that hitting the limit will JUST cause higher fees and
not bitcoin to fail, puppies to die or the sky to turn purple I think
that's a great step forward in this debate.
From that perspective, hitting the limit is not something terribly bad
(as said, I think it can even have positive consequences; for example,
higher fees may be just what is needed for more scalable solutions
[like payment channels] to be adopted by bitcoin companies). Hitting
the limit may produce a more healthy market, but it is true that a
market for fast confirmations already exists.
Unless we want to completely get rid of the blocksize limit (which I
would consider another debate entirely), we will eventually hit the
limit anyway. Why not now so that we can make sure the software is
completely compatible with having a limit?
Why we can hit the limit eventually but not now?
(As said, unless you think the limit should be completely removed forever).
|
