... - page 2. | Bitcointalksearch.org

adamstgBit

legendary

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1037

Trusted Bitcoiner

now that #1 argument is deemed invalid lets talk about #2

Quote from: turtlehurricane on August 17, 2015, 04:39:07 AM

2) Currently average block size is less than 0.4 mb now that the stress test bullshit is over. Gonna be a long time until we even hit the 1 mb limit.

we are hitting the 1MB limit on the majority of block right now.

the proof: https://blockchain.info/ look at the block size on the last 6 blocks mined

the average block size seems low because sometimes a miner puts out a block with like 10KB and pools seem to be limiting themselves to 900ish KB not 1024KB

adamstgBit

legendary

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1037

Trusted Bitcoiner

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/43331625/feemarket.pdf

uxgpf

newbie

Activity: 42

Merit: 0

Quote from: brg444 on September 09, 2015, 12:33:04 PM

The increase in fees paid is a result of more transactions, not bigger blocks.

You do know that blocks are made of transactions?

So generally, more transactions means exactly that, bigger blocks.

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: Peter R on September 09, 2015, 12:25:57 PM

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: Peter R on September 09, 2015, 12:56:21 AM

Quote from: ?? on ??

No one has real data to show that a higher block limit = more fees overall for miners, it is simply a misunderstanding of how transaction fees work in real life.

Here is real data that shows that over the last five years, higher block sizes = more fees overall for miners.

Block size has not been changed over the last 5 years, this is what I mean by people fundamentally misunderstand the issue…

What are you talking about? Block size has unquestionably changed (increased) over the last 5 years. The increase in the block size--such that it's now approaching the anti-spam limit--is what has precipitated this debate.

Peter your chart is misguiding obviously as it shows an increase in transactions, not block size, all happening under the same limit.

The increase in fees paid is a result of more transactions, not bigger blocks.

Peter R

legendary

Activity: 1162

Merit: 1007

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: Peter R on September 09, 2015, 12:56:21 AM

Quote from: ?? on ??

No one has real data to show that a higher block limit = more fees overall for miners, it is simply a misunderstanding of how transaction fees work in real life.

Here is real data that shows that over the last five years, higher block sizes = more fees overall for miners.

Block size has not been changed over the last 5 years, this is what I mean by people fundamentally misunderstand the issue…

What are you talking about? Block size has unquestionably changed (increased) over the last 5 years. The increase in the block size--such that it's now approaching the anti-spam limit--is what has precipitated this debate.

adamstgBit

legendary

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1037

Trusted Bitcoiner

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: Peter R on September 09, 2015, 12:56:21 AM

Quote from: ?? on ??

No one has real data to show that a higher block limit = more fees overall for miners, it is simply a misunderstanding of how transaction fees work in real life.

Here is real data that shows that over the last five years, higher block sizes = more fees overall for miners.

Block size has not been changed over the last 5 years, this is what I mean by people fundamentally misunderstand the issue. That shows transaction fees increase as transactions increase with a fixed block limit, but simultaneously shows fees do not have to keep rising since we are not at the limit (when transaction volumes reach the highest levels). That break from linearity at the end might be the stress test too, but that was good proof of my point we're discussing so it's still valid.

Think of it like the oil market. If block size is increased that's like discovering another Saudi Arabia and will flood supply, directly forcing total transaction fees downward.

the chart shows that total fees ( not the size of each fee ) per block goes up, because there's more TXs
1,000 TX paid 1 dollar fee each
or
100,000 TX paid 1 cent each
the end result is the same for the miners
case #1 bitcoin has a limited TPS and fees are high
case #2 bitcoin has unlimited TPS and fees are low
how in the world can you argue case #1 is better? Huh

uxgpf

newbie

Activity: 42

Merit: 0

Quote

Block size has not been changed over the last 5 years, this is what I mean by people fundamentally misunderstand the issue.

Maybe it's you who is totally misunderstanding the issue or just trolling. (I'm beginning to think of latter)

Block size has changed as you can see from the graph. The block size limit hasn't changed. So far the gap between actual block size and the limit has been so large that it has had no effect on economy whatsoever. (aside from recent "stress test".)

Quote

Think of it like the oil market. If block size is increased that's like discovering another Saudi Arabia and will flood supply, directly forcing total transaction fees downward.

That makes no sense. Total fees have increased so far with increasing block size (and transfer rate). There is no reason to think that total fees would suddenly drop while transaction volume keeps growing. History shows us that exactly opposite is true.

More apt comparison would be that if more oil is transported the transport companies will make more profit in total, even if growing market would drive unit transportation fees down.

If you honestly think that limiting block size will profit miners I have a great plan for you. Lets set block size limit to 0 and let miners enjoy huge profits from zero transaction rate. yay logic! Cheesy

jonald_fyookball

legendary

Activity: 1302

Merit: 1004

Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political

Actually the break from linearity is on the wrong side to support your theory.
(Should be up above the line, not below it).

Anyway, can you explain why you keep harping about the fees when
it will be several block halvings until fees even coming close the block
rewards, and therefore will be a minority of the security cost for
years or decades?

adamstgBit

legendary

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1037

Trusted Bitcoiner

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on September 09, 2015, 01:06:04 AM

Quote from: adamstgBit on September 09, 2015, 12:57:50 AM

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on September 09, 2015, 12:48:05 AM

@Adam:

You seem a bit confused also.

The argument that the small-blockers are making (the ones who know what they're talking about --
see Davout on Reddit), is that unless blockspace is made a scarce resource, the free market
price will be too low to provide sufficient security. The idea is similar to price fixing eggs
at the supermarkets so the farmers earn enough and continue farming eggs. However, there's
a few issues I have with that argument, which I posted in the other thread.

there argument is invalid for alot of reasons, but here's one.

1million TX per block with avg fee of about 1cent is a hell of reward every 10mins.
1000 TX per block with avg fee of about 1dollar is 10 times less of a reward.

the best is to have as many paying TX's on the network as possible, in that case in the future TX fees going from 1 cent to 3 cents wont mean much the the users but mean 3X more BTC for the minners.

Well, yes thats a possible scenario.

We have no idea how many transactions there will be decades from now,
which makes their line of argument pretty pointless, because we just
don't have enough data to formulate a complete scaling strategy (at least
as far as the fees go) this far ahead of time.

we can try to use commen sence to go in the right diretions

some how limiting bitcoin to <7TPS and stating that this is the only way miners will collect enough fees in the future seems wrong.

jonald_fyookball

legendary

Activity: 1302

Merit: 1004

Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political

Quote from: adamstgBit on September 09, 2015, 12:57:50 AM

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on September 09, 2015, 12:48:05 AM

@Adam:

You seem a bit confused also.

The argument that the small-blockers are making (the ones who know what they're talking about --
see Davout on Reddit), is that unless blockspace is made a scarce resource, the free market
price will be too low to provide sufficient security. The idea is similar to price fixing eggs
at the supermarkets so the farmers earn enough and continue farming eggs. However, there's
a few issues I have with that argument, which I posted in the other thread.

there argument is invalid for alot of reasons, but here's one.

1million TX per block with avg fee of about 1cent is a hell of reward every 10mins.
1000 TX per block with avg fee of about 1dollar is 10 times less of a reward.

the best is to have as many paying TX's on the network as possible, in that case in the future TX fees going from 1 cent to 3 cents wont mean much the the users but mean 3X more BTC for the minners.

Well, yes thats a possible scenario.

We have no idea how many transactions there will be decades from now,
which makes their line of argument pretty pointless, because we just
don't have enough data to formulate a complete scaling strategy (at least
as far as the fees go) this far ahead of time.

Is it possible the free market revenue of fees with no block rewards
will provide low security? Yes, it is. But how likely it is, is anyone's guess because no
one really knows how adoption is going to unfold. Therefore,
it would be irrational to limit the blocksize based on that,
at the current time.

Peter R

legendary

Activity: 1162

Merit: 1007

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on September 09, 2015, 12:48:05 AM

The argument that the small-blockers are making (the ones who know what they're talking about --
see Davout on Reddit), is that unless blockspace is made a scarce resource, the free market
price of fees will be too low to provide sufficient security. The idea is similar to price fixing eggs
at the supermarkets so the farmers earn enough and continue farming eggs.

It's funny: many small farmers are now locked out the egg market because they can't get a quota. The quota system has actually caused centralization of commercial egg producers here in Canada. Small farmers can't sell their eggs on the commercial markets even though some are more efficient than the large operations!

adamstgBit

legendary

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1037

Trusted Bitcoiner

Quote from: Peter R on September 09, 2015, 12:56:21 AM

Quote from: ?? on ??

No one has real data to show that a higher block limit = more fees overall for miners, it is simply a misunderstanding of how transaction fees work in real life.

Here is real data that shows that over the last five years, higher block sizes = more fees overall for miners.

+1

I hope to one day see Bitcoin transactions be expensive as hell and still limited to 7TPS

adamstgBit

legendary

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1037

Trusted Bitcoiner

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on September 09, 2015, 12:48:05 AM

@Adam:

You seem a bit confused also.

The argument that the small-blockers are making (the ones who know what they're talking about --
see Davout on Reddit), is that unless blockspace is made a scarce resource, the free market
price will be too low to provide sufficient security. The idea is similar to price fixing eggs
at the supermarkets so the farmers earn enough and continue farming eggs. However, there's
a few issues I have with that argument, which I posted in the other thread.

there argument is invalid for alot of reasons, but here's one.

1million TX per block with avg fee of about 1cent is a hell of reward every 10mins.
1000 TX per block with avg fee of about 1dollar is 10 times less of a reward.

the best is to have as many paying TX's on the network as possible, in that case in the future TX fees going from 1 cent to 3 cents wont mean much the the users but mean 3X more BTC for the minners.

Peter R

legendary

Activity: 1162

Merit: 1007

Quote from: ?? on ??

No one has real data to show that a higher block limit = more fees overall for miners, it is simply a misunderstanding of how transaction fees work in real life.

Here is real data that shows that over the last five years, higher block sizes = more fees overall for miners.

jonald_fyookball

legendary

Activity: 1302

Merit: 1004

Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political

Quote from: ?? on ??

Just to be totally clear since there is alot of misinformation in this thread, currently any bitcoin transaction can be sent for free, and this will be true forever if blocksize limit is continuously increased

I think you might be the one who is confused!

Your statement here will almost certainly be false when the block subsidies go away.
Fees will be the only thing left to support security costs.
Commercial miners will need to charge fees to stay in business.

The only way it could be true is if all mining is done by volunteers and hobbyists
or perhaps by dual purpose ASICS (mining refrigerators, etc)

@Adam:

You seem a bit confused also.

The argument that the small-blockers are making (the ones who know what they're talking about --
see Davout on Reddit), is that unless blockspace is made a scarce resource, the free market
price of fees will be too low to provide sufficient security. The idea is similar to price fixing eggs
at the supermarkets so the farmers earn enough and continue farming eggs. However, there's
a few issues I have with that argument, which I posted in the other thread:

Quote

What the "cap advocates" are saying is that the free market revenue will provide an insufficient level of security and they would like to boost it by decreasing the supply.
Its a fair argument. But, A) it can't be proven that the free market revenue will necessarily be insufficient, B) it is questionable that decreasing the supply is the only way to boost revenue, and C) it is unclear how much of a boost it would actually be able to accomplish

adamstgBit

legendary

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1037

Trusted Bitcoiner

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on September 08, 2015, 11:21:54 PM

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on September 08, 2015, 10:02:28 PM

Quote from: ?? on ??

I think there's a fundamental misunderstanding of what happens with transaction fees when the block limit is increased. All transactions can be sent for free if there is any empty space in the block. We need blocks to be filled completely to force a rise in transaction fees. Without this effect, in the scenario we increase block size, the network will be insecure in the future since miners will receive negligible payment. They will focus their efforts on something else which actually pays them.

Miners decide what to include. You're not making sense saying 'they can be sent for free'. They can only be sent free if the miner allows it. I've disussed some of the complexities in this thread.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.12361309

Any transaction can be sent for free as it is now, that's proof enough.

Some people say more transactions = more fees for miners, but that's untrue since 0 X any # of transactions is still 0. As I said before people fundamentally misunderstand how transaction fees work in the real world.

That's obviously true, but its a completely different context than the one where a blocksize cap can help raise fees (that context is far in the future when subsidies are greatlly diminished)...So It is puzzling why you're talking about them in the same paragraph, almost the same thought, when they are unrelated.

its not obviously true, its obviously false.

back in my day we paid fees for 2 reasons

1) paying a tiny fee to support the network felt good.
2) the bitcoin client was defaulted to pay this fee. altho easy to change the setting, it was simply not cool and you felt bad doing it.

blocks were never anywhere near full, yet poeple still paid fees.

further more, if miners saw that some % of poeple never payed the tiny fee it would only take 1 miner to refuse to include 0fee TX into his blocks and that would add a big insensitive for everyone to pay this tiny fee to be sure to not let there confirmation time be determined by luck, most likely miners would be smart and include only 10 0 fee TX pre block that they mine, so that free TX in bitcoin are always possible but always much slower to confirm then a paid fee TX.

Proof that this "fee market" BS spread by the block-stream 1MBters are spreading are false! ::
Fact, miners are profit driven.
Fact, majority of miners want to increase block size
Conclusion, the idea that block limit will somehow make miners more money is a funny idea.

jonald_fyookball

legendary

Activity: 1302

Merit: 1004

Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on September 08, 2015, 10:02:28 PM

Quote from: ?? on ??

I think there's a fundamental misunderstanding of what happens with transaction fees when the block limit is increased. All transactions can be sent for free if there is any empty space in the block. We need blocks to be filled completely to force a rise in transaction fees. Without this effect, in the scenario we increase block size, the network will be insecure in the future since miners will receive negligible payment. They will focus their efforts on something else which actually pays them.

Miners decide what to include. You're not making sense saying 'they can be sent for free'. They can only be sent free if the miner allows it. I've disussed some of the complexities in this thread.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.12361309

Any transaction can be sent for free as it is now, that's proof enough.

Some people say more transactions = more fees for miners, but that's untrue since 0 X any # of transactions is still 0. As I said before people fundamentally misunderstand how transaction fees work in the real world.

That's obviously true, but its a completely different context than the one where a blocksize cap can help raise fees (that context is far in the future when subsidies are greatlly diminished)...So It is puzzling why you're talking about them in the same paragraph, almost the same thought, when they are unrelated.

adamstgBit

legendary

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1037

Trusted Bitcoiner

Quote from: ?? on ??

I think there's a fundamental misunderstanding of what happens with transaction fees when the block limit is increased. All transactions can be sent for free if there is any empty space in the block. We need blocks to be filled completely to force a rise in transaction fees. Without this effect, in the scenario we increase block size, the network will be insecure in the future since miners will receive negligible payment. They will focus their efforts on something else which actually pays them.

fact, for years bitcoin has been well below block limit and for years most poeple put a fee along with their TX...

fact, 1million TX per block with avg fee of about 1cent is a hell of reward every 10mins.

fact, 1000 TX per block with avg fee of about 1dollar is 10 times less of a reward.

conclusion, small block with high fees, will make bitcoin less useful and less secure in the future

Cool

RoooooR

legendary

Activity: 1008

Merit: 1000

GigTricks.io | A CRYPTO ECOSYSTEM FOR ON-DEMAND EC

increasing block size could actually destroy Bitcoin, rather than help it!

jonald_fyookball

legendary

Activity: 1302

Merit: 1004

Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political

Quote from: ?? on ??

I think there's a fundamental misunderstanding of what happens with transaction fees when the block limit is increased. All transactions can be sent for free if there is any empty space in the block. We need blocks to be filled completely to force a rise in transaction fees. Without this effect, in the scenario we increase block size, the network will be insecure in the future since miners will receive negligible payment. They will focus their efforts on something else which actually pays them.

Miners decide what to include. You're not making sense saying 'they can be sent for free'. They can only be sent free if the miner allows it. I've disussed some of the complexities in this thread.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.12361309

Topic: ... - page 2. (Read 4512 times)