Topic: Block Size Debate, finally an ideal solution: Bitcoin Unlimited - page 2. (Read 2125 times)

This is from page 2 of the paper. So no the block reward does not include the fees. The point of the paper is to use orphan blocks to set a fee. Otherwise one ends up going in circles.

Your reply to expected statement is weaksauce. Obviously, what prevents TX fees from going to zero is that miners will not mine if there is no incentive. This is the same situation whether blocks are unlimited by the protocol, or limited to 1MB.

Sure - _everyone_ switching over to BU reduces diversity - of implementation. However, in the current environment, almost half switching over would increase diversity of implementation.

Fundamental misunderstanding. The orphan cost is indeed proportional to the block reward. But the block reward includes both the block subsidy, and the collective transaction fees.

I was actually expecting this response. What then prevents TX fees from going to zero if there is an unlimited blocksize? Keep in mind that if all TX fees do is overcome the orphan block penalty the net fee paid to the miner would still be zero.

Yeah I would stay at core but have a custom block size limit for my node and reject SegWit. I think I could compile my own custom build from core's src code having block size increased and segwit disabled.

personally everyone switching to bitcoin unlimited is just as bad as everyone switching over to core.. it removes diversity.. however core should have its own user defined blocksize option instead of node users needing to cry to core for more and having devs say yes or no. like some oliver twist food scene.
'please sir can i have some more'

no one should have sole power over change. it should remain decentralized and diverse. but allow the freedom of growth by not stifling growth for corporate greed/ego/profit agenda

+1

I have spread the Bitcoin Unlimited propaganda on the bitcoin's own block chain now.


Interestingly, Bitcoin Unlimited is a featured wallet at bitcoin.com. This just made me trust Bitcoin Unlimited even more.

we should not implement monero's version..
by that i mean
NOTHING should ever even come close to messing with the block reward mechanism. no way to higher it or reduce it.. apart from the built in halving mechanism that should continue doing what its doing.
again nothing else should mess with the reward mechanism now or in the future.


however over the next few DECADES the fee's become more important so miners will want to slowly have more transactions so that the fee's dont have to become expensive to subsidize the drop in reward per 4 years..

its better to have 9000 transactions at 1cent rather than 1 transaction at 9000cents.

and yes that might only be $90 but like i said the reward:fee switch over is not a problem today. but in DECADES so in DECADES we would hopefully be at more than 9000 transactions a block.
even if the doomsday agenda crew keep putting capacity of DECADES into rhetoric of this or last year. not understanding things grow.
after all.. 2 years ago core was saying 2mb bloat would kill chinese miners. but now saying 4mb bloat is ok.. funny that.
afterall.. 16 years ago the largest hard drive you could get was 4GB..
things grow and change given time

TX fees.

A free market implies payment. How are the miners supposed to be paid without a block reward?

Although your reasoning is plausible I would still argue that a free market solution would fix everything. Miners that are not satisfied with the rewards gained from the fees can feel free to quit mining. I will gladly be amongst the ones filling their place.

If it only were that simple. I have also been in the Bitcoin business since 2011. The fundamental failure of applying Monero type scaling models, where the miners are penalized a percentage of the blockreward if they mine bigger blocks, to Bitcoin is what happens when the block reward runs out. If the block reward runs out there is no penalty and no incentive for the miners to secure the coin. If one reads Peter R. Rizun's paper https://www.bitcoinunlimited.info/resources/feemarket.pdf, one will understand that the effective miner penalty for increasing the blocksize due to orphan blocks is proportional to the block reward.

The only reason miner penalties that are proportional to the block reward work in Monero is that Monero has a perpetual block reward (tail emission). Bitcoin does not.

There is a reason why there are many in Bitcoin that are opposed to increasing the blocksize. They understand that without a a minimum perpetual block reward (tail emission), Bitcoin has to rely on fees to provide an incentive to the miners. This means one has to limit the blocksize in order to force the fees to go up.
 
Edit 1; Dogecoin unlimited may work but not Bitcoin unlimited.
Edit 2: I have listened to the video and yes I see how Blockstream when combined with a very small blocksize does become a tool for the existing banking system. This however does not change the reality that there is currently no viable solution for decentralized blocksize scaling without a tail emission. If someone has such a solution I would like to see it.

While I agree with most of what you said I cannot interpret free market as a symptom of the new world order. Quite the opposite. No idea how you came up with that. Sorry.


Thanks for pointing that out. Follow the money. Good idea.

EDIT:
For anyone new to this thread, listen to this video. I just discovered it and it sure is relevant to this topic.

Just another symptom of the thought-control that has led to you not learning of BU until now.

blockstream want to go offchain. guess who will be running the lightning hubs and sidechains..locking funds into dual signed addresses where the second signature is... guess who

All they care for is fiat. Fiat has to go

check out where Greg maxwells wages are coming from..
check out where matt corallos wages are coming from
check out where pieter wuilles wages are coming from
that $75mill investment so far into blockstream has come from the banking groups.

think about it, research it and realise who is controlling it.

"Free market" is New world Order and has to fail.  The internet is a battlefield that is only just starting to spill blood. It will soon become full war. Not between nations but between the people and the ruling classes. It started with Brexit and is spreading into the US. The people will take back control but first we must crash fiat. It has started with the GB £ and the US $ will follow

Bitcoin must not go mainstream, It must stay the payment system for the Resistance to the New world Order.  A global insurrection against banker occupation has began. If we scale too quickly they will hijack our tech. I'm with segregated witness. Let's see the banking system fail first and then we will see if we get 95%

I feel violated by the act of moderators moving this topic. It was never intended for altcoin discussion because Bitcoin Unlimited is not an altcoin. It is a solution to the block chain debate and the whole bitcoin community should be aware of it as an option. This is the first time I feel discriminated by the moderators of this forum as they clearly serve an egoistic agenda. Is there any place to discuss Bitcoin where free speech is not censored like that? I was going to support segWit because I thought that we could gradually introduce both to Bitcoin: unlimited blocks and segwit. Now that I see my ideas suppressed I am going to revolt against the core team and boycott the SegWit. I am going to start using Bitcoin Unlimited (which I didn't have in mind before mods moved my topic). I am also going to start BU propaganda from my free time and resources because that's what you get when you humiliate me by suppressing my opinion.

Since I don't agree with moderators and I would expect them to undo their action I am going to open a new topic for a new idea that just came to my mind: Solution to the Block Size Debate for Miners