Jared Lee Richardson [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2017-03-30 📝 Original message:> Further, we are very far ...
📅 Original date posted:2017-03-30
📝 Original message:> Further, we are very far from the point (in my appraisal) where fees are
high enough to block home users from using the network.
This depends entirely on the usecase entirely. Most likely even without a
blocksize increase, home purchases will be large enough to fit on the
blocksize in the forseeable future. Microtransactions(<$0.25) on the other
hand aren't viable no matter what we try to do - There's just too much data.
Most likely, transaction fees above $1 per tx will become unappealing for
many consumers, and above $10 is likely to be niche-level. It is hard to
say with any certainty, but average credit card fees give us some
indications to work with - $1.2 on a $30 transaction, though paid by the
business and not the consumer.
Without blocksize increases, fees higher than $1/tx are basically
inevitable, most likely before 2020. Running a node only costs $10/month
if that. If we were going to favor node operational costs that highly in
the weighting, we'd better have a pretty solid justification with
mathematical models or examples.
> We should not throw away the core innovation of monetary sovereignty in
pursuit of supporting 0.1% of the world's daily transactions.
If we can easily have both, why not have both?
An altcoin with both will take Bitcoin's monetary sovereignty crown by
default. No crown, no usecases, no Bitcoin.
On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 9:14 AM, David Vorick via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> On Mar 30, 2017 12:04 PM, "Tom Harding via bitcoin-dev" <
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> Raystonn,
>
> Your logic is very hard to dispute. An important special case is small
> miners.
>
> Small miners use pools exactly because they want smaller, more frequent
> payments.
>
> Rising fees force them to take payments less frequently, and will only
> tend to make more of them give up.
>
> With fees rising superlinearly, this centralizing effect is much stronger
> than the oft-cited worry of small miners joining large pools to decrease
> orphan rates.
>
>
> Miners get paid on average once every ten minutes. The size of fees and
> the number of fee transactions does not change the payout rate.
>
> Further, we are very far from the point (in my appraisal) where fees are
> high enough to block home users from using the network.
>
> Bitcoin has many high-value use cases such as savings. We should not throw
> away the core innovation of monetary sovereignty in pursuit of supporting
> 0.1% of the world's daily transactions.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20170330/697743ea/attachment.html>;
📝 Original message:> Further, we are very far from the point (in my appraisal) where fees are
high enough to block home users from using the network.
This depends entirely on the usecase entirely. Most likely even without a
blocksize increase, home purchases will be large enough to fit on the
blocksize in the forseeable future. Microtransactions(<$0.25) on the other
hand aren't viable no matter what we try to do - There's just too much data.
Most likely, transaction fees above $1 per tx will become unappealing for
many consumers, and above $10 is likely to be niche-level. It is hard to
say with any certainty, but average credit card fees give us some
indications to work with - $1.2 on a $30 transaction, though paid by the
business and not the consumer.
Without blocksize increases, fees higher than $1/tx are basically
inevitable, most likely before 2020. Running a node only costs $10/month
if that. If we were going to favor node operational costs that highly in
the weighting, we'd better have a pretty solid justification with
mathematical models or examples.
> We should not throw away the core innovation of monetary sovereignty in
pursuit of supporting 0.1% of the world's daily transactions.
If we can easily have both, why not have both?
An altcoin with both will take Bitcoin's monetary sovereignty crown by
default. No crown, no usecases, no Bitcoin.
On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 9:14 AM, David Vorick via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> On Mar 30, 2017 12:04 PM, "Tom Harding via bitcoin-dev" <
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> Raystonn,
>
> Your logic is very hard to dispute. An important special case is small
> miners.
>
> Small miners use pools exactly because they want smaller, more frequent
> payments.
>
> Rising fees force them to take payments less frequently, and will only
> tend to make more of them give up.
>
> With fees rising superlinearly, this centralizing effect is much stronger
> than the oft-cited worry of small miners joining large pools to decrease
> orphan rates.
>
>
> Miners get paid on average once every ten minutes. The size of fees and
> the number of fee transactions does not change the payout rate.
>
> Further, we are very far from the point (in my appraisal) where fees are
> high enough to block home users from using the network.
>
> Bitcoin has many high-value use cases such as savings. We should not throw
> away the core innovation of monetary sovereignty in pursuit of supporting
> 0.1% of the world's daily transactions.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20170330/697743ea/attachment.html>;