You are not going to get a fair fee market if your only form of enforcement is the threat of exclusion.
A more fair fee market will develop if miners start offering quality of service, preferably at multiple tiers. At that point any interference from a block size cap will only be detrimental. In fact it will only highlight what the cap is actually for; to prevent monster blocks. Add better QoS tools for miners and extend the cap (when possible) and there's your fee market. jp > On Jul 24, 2015, at 8:04 AM, Eric Lombrozo via bitcoin-dev > <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > I should also add that I think those who claim that fee pressure will scare > away users and break the industry are *seriously* underestimating human > ingenuity in the face of a challenge. We can do this - we can overcome this > obstacle…we can find good solutions to a fee market. Unless someone can come > up with another way to pay for the operation of the network, we NEED to do > this. What makes anyone think it will be easier to do later rather than now? > The longer we wait, the lower block rewards get, the larger the deployed > infrastructure, the larger our userbase, the HARDER it will be to solve it. > We should solve it now - we will be much better off for it…and so will our > users. > > >>> On Jul 23, 2015, at 4:57 PM, Eric Lombrozo <elombr...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>> On Jul 23, 2015, at 4:42 PM, Benedict Chan <ben...@fragnetics.com> wrote: >>> >>> Scaling the network will come in the form of a combination of many >>> optimizations. Just because we do not know for sure how to eventually >>> serve 7 billion people does not mean we should make decisions on >>> global validation that impact our ability to serve the current set of >>> users. >> >> Agreed. But I believe the economic and security arguments I gave regarding >> fees and incentives still hold and are largely separate from the scalability >> issue. Please correct me if I overlooked something. >> >> >>> Also, blocking a change because it's "more important to address issues >>> such as..." other improvements will further slow down the discussion. >>> I believe an increase will not prevent the development of other >>> improvements that we need - in contrast, the sooner we can get over >>> the limit (which, as you agree, needs to be changed at some point), >>> the sooner we can get back to work. >> >> An increase in block size at this time will exacerbate security concerns >> around nodes relying on other nodes to validate (particularly miners and >> wallets). It’s not really a matter of having limited developer resources >> that need to be budgeted, as you seem to suggest. >> >> Regarding developments on properly handling fees, there must exist the >> economic need for it before there’s an earnest effort to solve it. >> Increasing the block size right now will, in all likelihood, delay this >> effort. I’d much prefer to first let the fee market evolve because it’s a >> crucial component to the protocol’s design and its security model…and so we >> can get a better sense for fee economics. Then we might be able to figure >> out better approaches to block size changes in the future that makes sense >> economically…perhaps with mechanisms that can dynamically adjust it to >> reflect resource availability and network load. > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
_______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
