thank you!
i picked some quotes which i found interesting in the hope we could discuss them more in-depth.
The fundamental pain point here, is that Gavin insists on everyone being able to get in, instead of allowing a sane transaction fee market to emerge, by letting the blocks actually fill-up.
if tx fees are to replace the block reward the blocks *have* to be full
i dont agree.
atm we can ignore this problem as the block reward is too high (i think we agree on this?)
later a miner must still cover his costs. if this is not the case he has two choices: quitting or raising fees (lets assume they are all honest and nice for simplicity reasons).
if he is "allowed" to make bigger blocks he has a third choice: invest in bandwith and make bigger blocks.
more transactions in a block means that small changes in fee have a bigger impact on the miner.
it's up to you to demonstrate it's necessary, not the other way around, how does that not make sense?
the problem is, that the same argument goes the other way around, because satoshi did not demonstrate its necessarity when he did the change - so we could argue it is reverting a hotfix (but - thats just rhetorical)
just because going from 1tx/10min to 7tx/s makes the system more valuable, doesn't mean you get to extrapolate linearly
thats right, but who said that if we raise blocksizes the system is more valuable?
it has the possibility to get more valuable.
you can not develop a healthy market for transaction fees without blocks being full and space being scarce
i dont think so.
miners control the resource (blocksize) and the price (fee): they compete regardless of blocksize or transaction count.
the fees are not important today, but that's not because of the subsidy being here, that's because of the blocks not being full
you really think miners would compete for fees if the 1mb limit is used? the subsidy is 25btc right now fees are about 0.5 btc/block (
http://charts.bconomy.com/)
[...] convenience has never been the point of bitcoin... [...] the point of bitcoin is "i own my shit, get your hands off of it"
i absolutely agree.
i'd even go so far to say bitcoin should only be used by tech-savy people (at least as long as things like trezor or heating-miners for personal use are not availble everywhere)
if tx fees are 11$ per transaction and bitcoin transactions routinely move millions and millions of dollars in each block i say make an altcoin, call it poorcoin, starbuckscoin or whatever you want, but don't try to shoehorn it into bitcoin because somehow you got married to that particular idea
if that would be the case i would move my hole wealth to that altcoin, because i dont think bitcoin will survive if there is an obviously better alternative
(btw what is your opinion about sidechains for micropayments? thats what i am unsure about...)
btw i still want to know your superior Visa/Mastercard alternative based on Bitcoin. maybe lightning network - not sure 1MB is enough room for their settlements, or something like inputs.io (they actually tried to be such a thing)?
