adamstgBit You giga block supporters are naive if you think Bitcoin can grow by 100 fold in the next 15 weeks or 1k fold in 4 years. We simple do not have enough users to support low fees at this time.
we dont need 100 fold growth in the next 15 weeks....
we need more like 30% price increase and double the fees on blocks in the next 15 weeks.
in that case the reward halving will be mitigated with higher BTC prices, and slightly more BTC fees on each block.
if segwit was ready 6 months ago i'd feel more comfortable...
there a balance between driving fees high and driving a high number of low fee TX
bacily if we look at block space as a good miners produce, the pricing of that good is the TX fee.
how do we find the best price?
somthing like this.
i believe we dont need to artificially limit supply miners have a real cost to including TX in blocks in the form of orphan risks
then demand can be roughly calculated with like avg number of TX bytes to include every 10mins
then miners can calculate the optimal price for a TX fee
then they can simple choose to not sell block space for much less than this optimal price.
Don't forget that the amount of hashrate can drop due to miners leaving the game. And miners becoming more efficient. Which raises reward for miners that still stay in the game. If miners drop out because the reward is too low then the remaining miners will earn a bit more than before.
So even when the fee reward now might be $27 only per block, it only matters for the future when we stay with this max amount of transactions to be included into each block. Adoption was THE key to raise fees over time and to lower the effects of block halving for miners.
In fact the only hindering thing in this is the capped amount of transactions.
By the way, your logic regarding the safety of the network connected to the bitcoin price is true on one side. Miners will drop out. Though attacking is not worth anything anymore then too. Why attack when the reward does not matter? It would only be a problem when it is pretty sure that the bitcoin price will rise again.
LaudaI wouldn't complain if the fee will stay low. Since that was one of the promise bitcoin was giving. And bitcoin is losing that advantage step by step.
You are technically paying for the security of such a large network. Everything else doesn't even come close to Bitcoin.
Right, paying for security. But the plan was that the block halving will be supplied by more and more transactions happening so that fees slowly become a considerable size. With 1mb blocks it is absolutely not possible over the longer timeframe.
Besides, I would prefer halving and way more of the miners. It is not that we users don't pay enough. It is that the market is way way too oversaturated with miners. Which means mining is way too rewarding so that too many miners are in the game.
I surely don't like to pay for unneeded security that does not bring any advantage at all anymore.
Your sarcasms is not appropriated. You know quite well that the fee is not high with that amount. The point was that the fee is rising constantly.
The point is that it was expected. Anyone with a lot of money could artificially raise the limit right now.
Yes. And why? Because of that artificial limit. It IS artificial. It is not a base setting of bitcoin like some 1mb block fans like to claim.
In fact the thing that was awaited by those being here since years was that bitcoin transactions rise and rise. Fees are growing because of more transactions and fees become a size that pays miners.
Well for someone who does not want bitcoin to grow your logic is pretty fine. Well think for yourself why should someone use bitcoin when it is expensive? I think your vision of bitcoin will become something politicians feel the need to stop by blocking acceptance, going after miners and such. Because the reward of using it will go into illegal directions more and more. Anonymity bought with high fees. Or transporting money over borders without notification.
Basically you're opting for "let's rush growth because that matters the most" and I'm opting for "let's be conservative and add TX space when it is safe to do so". If you really think about it, Bitcoin does not need to grow. Bitcoin works and will work fine at a 1 MB block size limit. The fee will never be absurdly high due to the self regulating cycle. Besides, once you have LN deployed you have a theoretically infinite limit.
Let's be conservative... well, that sounds like bankers speech. "We limit the amount of transactions that can be done because we want a stable price to establish." Well, no, that is not how it should work. Bitcoin should be a free payment protocol for everyone. And not something for people that decide how much transactions they should allow. That is so wrong on so many levels. And then those guys are wondering why bitcoinfans get in an uproar.
This "the strong will survive" is surely not the "let's free the people from the banks" that satoshi envisioned. The people surely are not only the rich guys that push away the normal people from bitcoin because they feel this is a place for the elite.
There won't be any vision if you rush into untested waters with untested forks. Additionally, if you let 1 controversial fork succeed it is most likely that it won't be the last one.
Well, I have to laugh when I read these two sentences. You realize how you speak here? Fear. It doesn't matter that it was no problem in the past but in the future it surely must be a problem because... tree.
And no, we can't allow anyone to raise his ugly head to oppose our own blockchain. We are in control and all the other guys are the bad ones that try to disturb the peace and control we hold.
Well, I wonder when fear took over in the bitcoin world.
I was told Classic was just Core with a 2 MB block size limit, but now I see SPV mining too. Was I deceived 
