Haplo I demand you back up your LIES with a cite.
Please provide a specific cite where I stated:
a) fees should always remain the same regardless of the market value of BTC
b) miners "deserve" 50 BTC per block in fees
c) how much fees are necessary to regain 50 BTC per block.
You will learn reputation is earned here and with only 49 posts you are starting out as a blatant liar. I expect that when you can't find evidence to back up your lies you will correct your blatantly false statements about me. We can disagree on the facts but I won't stand by when some fraking noob start lying to my face. Regardless of your actions the quote will remain so others can see how little your word is worth.
Quoted for prosperity how little value Haplo's word has:
Case in point: D&T ran out as fast as possible and commissioned fee software, calculating how much he has to charge people in order to regain 50BTC per block after the subsidy is cut down, as though miners "deserve" to be paid 50BTC per block in fees, regardless of the market value of 1BTC, regardless of the value of the service they provide, and regardless of what users are willing to pay (100% exclusion for those paying less than his fee).
Since all users are free to edit and/or delete their own posts, there is no way for me to prove absolutely what you said or did not say. That said, I can no longer find the post I was referring to, but that could be simply because I haven't looked far enough. Either way I can't find it on search and I don't feel like looking any further just to prove that you're a communist. Also, I could give a shit less what my post count is or what other people think.
However, there is something I'm curious about.
One related question. Is it possible to have bitcoind create a tx but not broadcast it? If so is it then part of the memorypool? If not could bitcoind be modified to make it part of the memorypool? Essentially I want the ability to include a tx in a block that hasn't been broadcasted (coin melting).
Is there a purpose for doing that besides intentionally destroying coins, or perhaps making a finney attack?
There is at least one more obvious and just as important purpose to mining ... securing the block-chain by generating new blocks.
You need both to happen since mining blocks with a million txn's will not help anything if you are not actually generating required difficulty blocks...
So, yeah, being god and saying everyone must do this coz you think it is right, doesn't really work that well in the real world where "science" decides
Securing tx and including tx are inseparable. Security with no tx and tx with no security are equally useless, since tx are ultimately what is being secured. We would never consider paying miners just to sit around spamming an empty blockchain, since that by itself serves no purpose.
That said, I can see that there may be other technical problems with the minimum inclusion proposal, but since everyone seems to have a different idea of how tx inclusion and mining pools work (which may be true, since there are different software versions), I can't even intelligibly decide whether I'm full of shit or not,
however..
(1) If pool owners are purposefully excluding tx because it is inefficient for them in some way, that is entirely their fault, or possibly a shortcoming in the BTC protocol itself; but if that is the case, then shouldn't P2mining be impractical? If distributed mining isn't practical (especially now when there are only ~80tx per block), then how practical is BTC going to be when there are 1000tx+ per block? Otherwise what do we need major pools and pool operators for to begin with?
(2) If a pool owner is excluding tx because they can't keep the blockchain on their machines, we should force blockchain validation a la gmaxwell, assuming that his proposal (or something similar) would in fact solve the problem. I have my doubts.
(3) The monopolist/commons problem may or may not become relevant. A minimum inclusion requirement wouldn't necessarily solve that problem, either. The main problem is that, unlike a free market, only one "seller" gets to sell his product every ~10 minutes or so, no matter what the demand is, so there is an inherent limitation in price matching between buyers and sellers, which biases towards unilateral miner monopoly a bit more than in a "normal" market. If history serves as any reasonable guide, the next step is that monopolists arise (probably the owner of DeepBit, for that matter), then the next thing you know they own the currency and you've got full-on fascism all over again. An external fascist nation with enough resources (ie the USA) could easily produce the same result if they wanted to purposefully destroy the currency.
Some form of proof of stake might mitigate that possibility, but I don't know of any practical way to make that work. BTC combines both technological concerns along with economic concerns, which makes it far more complicated than any other currency, period. Considering it's less than 4 years old, it's not even clear that it will actually work at all at this point, but the sheer number of ways in which it could be attacked from within or without doesn't look very promising. Without tangible benefits over fiat or gold, there's no reason to use it at all. Anyone using BTC right now is really speculating on an experiment, which is fine for personal use, but unacceptable from a business standpoint.
Doesn't have to. Usually, the pool master does the merkle tree work and just passes the merkle root & the rest of the header to be hashed to the miners, so the miners don't see more with or without transactions.
Makes sense. Then the question is "how consistently could a tx list be kept across different nodes on the network?"
D&T seems to think this would make tx inclusion less efficient (which it might depending on the mechanics of the inclusion quota) however I don't see how that could be the general case. As long as miners are using similar inclusion criteria, their lists should be very similar overall, so it should be possible to reach a reliable agreement over the network.
The way I see it, if a miner is happily accepting charity from their 25-50BTC block reward, paid by all BTC stakeholders and potential stakeholders, then they should happily accept a minimum quota of charity returned to those stakeholders to ensure the reliability and longevity of the network. It doesn't even require that they necessarily accept free tx, just as long as they include enough tx to prove that they're contributing
something. The only outlier case is where the next block is found before any new tx are broadcast, which is possible, but there are ways of allowing such blocks to be accepted anyway.
