Mining for fee only is unsustainable. - page 2.

unk

member

Activity: 84

Merit: 10

Quote from: da2ce7 on June 05, 2011, 10:23:33 AM

Quote from: unk on June 05, 2011, 10:18:14 AM

yes, i was going to say the same thing. first of all, how many developers and economic thinkers of even above-average abilities (for, say, an open-source project) do you think are associated with bitcoin development? my estimate is 6, and in any event it's less than a dozen. second, the issue has been quite contentious, and unresolved, for some time. [citation needed]

lulz oh you are so funny. Grin

and you're childish, at least judging from your reply.

see http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=6284.0, for a start. i concur with the original poster's summary:

Quote

The thread is beginning to show something I find frightening. There exists no generally accepted model or even set of rules for Bitcoin in the future. A portion of people claim that removing the transaction limit will do no harm, the others use it as the last argument why Bitcoin will not enter the failure scenario described.

da2ce7

legendary

Activity: 1222

Merit: 1016

Live and Let Live

Quote from: unk on June 05, 2011, 10:18:14 AM

yes, i was going to say the same thing. first of all, how many developers and economic thinkers of even above-average abilities (for, say, an open-source project) do you think are associated with bitcoin development? my estimate is 6, and in any event it's less than a dozen. second, the issue has been quite contentious, and unresolved, for some time. [citation needed]

lulz oh you are so funny. Grin

unk

member

Activity: 84

Merit: 10

Quote from: mestar on June 05, 2011, 10:07:03 AM

I personally have no opinion if bitcoin is sustainable with transaction fees only, perhaps it is, perhaps it isn't.

But, why do you think that "thousands of smartest people on the planet" have solved this issue, or, even why do you even think that all of them have given this issue much thought at all?

yes, i was going to say the same thing. first of all, how many developers and economic thinkers of even above-average abilities (for, say, an open-source project) do you think are associated with bitcoin development? my estimate is 6, and in any event it's less than a dozen. second, the issue has been quite contentious, and unresolved, for some time.

'we've talked about it already; see these several discussions...' would be more accurate, and probably more helpful too. bitcoin doesn't stand to benefit from overly grand claims.

(even the 'biggest supercomputer in the world' claim falls flat once you think about it for a second. if you consider mostly uncoordinated enumeration and verification as a 'supercomputer', more cycles per second are used on any number of other loosely distributed activities throughout the world. bitcoin has a few thousand graphics cards behind it; say that instead rather than aggrandising the claim. like all aggressive marketing, it's a turn-off, at least to me.)

ttk2

member

Activity: 76

Merit: 10

Quote

Perhaps I am falling behind, but wasn't the consensus that a likely outcome was the formation of cartels? And that these cartels would effectively control bitcoin as they control which transactions to confirm?

That situation seems eerily similar to the consolidation of power that we currently see in finance.

That will happen if and only if the cost of running a full node becomes prohibitive. I recently did some research into this and came to the conclusion that that if the bitcoin network reached the number of transactions per second of visa (2000) today it would cost about $1600 to build a node capable of storing the huge (multi-terabyte) block chain and processing the transactions (some changes to the client may be prudent to make 2000 transactions per second go more smoothly but not many and none justifying a split) . $1600 is not a large enough barrier for entry to allow the formation of cartels, and as time goes on and tech improves this barrier will continue to go down. Simply put with some creative coding and some technical skills coping with large block chains and transaction volumes is not difficult enough to create the cartel scenario.

mestar

sr. member

Activity: 407

Merit: 250

Quote from: Vladimir on June 05, 2011, 07:08:34 AM

Another guy who thinks that in 5 minutes he figured out what thousands of smartest people on the planet failed to spot in 2 years.

I personally have no opinion if bitcoin is sustainable with transaction fees only, perhaps it is, perhaps it isn't.

But, why do you think that "thousands of smartest people on the planet" have solved this issue, or, even why do you even think that all of them have given this issue much thought at all?

My thoughts are that a vast majority of people simply saw that, hey, mining is hugely profitable right now, why not get involved. And if it is sustainable after block rewards are gone, who cares what happens in 20 or 30 years.

What would be your estimate of this percentage: of those thousands people, how many of them are *not* involved with mining?

gene

sr. member

Activity: 252

Merit: 250

Quote from: Vladimir on June 05, 2011, 07:08:34 AM

Another guy who thinks that in 5 minutes he figured out what thousands of smartest people on the planet failed to spot in 2 years. Humility is surely even in more short supply than bitcoins among noobs these days.

Perhaps I am falling behind, but wasn't the consensus that a likely outcome was the formation of cartels? And that these cartels would effectively control bitcoin as they control which transactions to confirm?

That situation seems eerily similar to the consolidation of power that we currently see in finance.

cbeast

donator

Activity: 1736

Merit: 1014

Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.

Quote from: Vladimir on June 05, 2011, 07:08:34 AM

Another guy who thinks that in 5 minutes he figured out what thousands of smartest people on the planet failed to spot in 2 years. Humility is surely even in more short supply than bitcoins among noobs these days.

I agree wholeheartedly. Bitcoin is the Google of finance. Lead, follow, or get out of the way!

da2ce7

legendary

Activity: 1222

Merit: 1016

Live and Let Live

Welcome to the BITCOIN NOOB ALERT!!!! Go to https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Main_Page for your bitcoin schooling so you may not make such a huge fool of yourself next time!

dkaparis

newbie

Activity: 53

Merit: 0

Quote from: omri on June 05, 2011, 07:21:52 AM

Quote from: dkaparis on June 05, 2011, 07:15:18 AM

Quote from: omri on June 05, 2011, 07:05:55 AM

E.g. if 1/6 of miners are willing to accept your fee the time to get 6 confirmations is doubled on average. That way most users will only pay a fee that enough (but not most) miners will accept.

Incorrect. With 1/6 of miners accepting your fee, there is 1/6 chance your transaction will be included in the next block, thus on average your transactions will be 6 times slower.

It's 6 times slower for first confirmation, but from then on it's the regular rate, so it's only double the time for 6 confirmation.

True, just like if only 1 per cent of miners accept your fee, this will just double the time to get 100 confirmations.
I fail to see what's so interesting about the number 6, or 100, though, apart from the analysis that for higher number of confirmations you require, you should pay a lower fee.

barbarousrelic

hero member

Activity: 675

Merit: 502

It all depends on how full each block is, and thus, it depends on how popular Bitcoin becomes.

If each block is less than its maximum allowed size, it is in each miner's interest to accept all nonzero transaction fees.

If there are more transactions than can fit on a single block, then it is a miner's interest to only accept the higher-fee transactions and exclude all lower-fee transactions that won't fit on the block.

omri

newbie

Activity: 22

Merit: 0

Quote from: dkaparis on June 05, 2011, 07:15:18 AM

Quote from: omri on June 05, 2011, 07:05:55 AM

E.g. if 1/6 of miners are willing to accept your fee the time to get 6 confirmations is doubled on average. That way most users will only pay a fee that enough (but not most) miners will accept.

Incorrect. With 1/6 of miners accepting your fee, there is 1/6 chance your transaction will be included in the next block, thus on average your transactions will be 6 times slower.

It's 6 times slower for first confirmation, but from then on it's the regular rate, so it's only double the time for 6 confirmation.

dkaparis

newbie

Activity: 53

Merit: 0

Quote from: omri on June 05, 2011, 07:05:55 AM

E.g. if 1/6 of miners are willing to accept your fee the time to get 6 confirmations is doubled on average. That way most users will only pay a fee that enough (but not most) miners will accept.

Incorrect. With 1/6 of miners accepting your fee, there is 1/6 chance your transaction will be included in the next block, thus on average your transactions will be 6 times slower.

cschmitz

member

Activity: 98

Merit: 10

You are free to create your own alternative that behaves in the way suggested.
Why do you assume that you can predict how anything looks in 5 years, let alone 20?

Vladimir

hero member

Activity: 812

Merit: 1001

-

Another guy who thinks that in 5 minutes he figured out what thousands of smartest people on the planet failed to spot in 2 years. Humility is surely even in more short supply than bitcoins among noobs these days.

omri

newbie

Activity: 22

Merit: 0

Fee rates will tend to go down with competition, since even a minority of miners willing to accept a lower fee will not unreasonably delay a transaction's acceptance rate. E.g. if 1/6 of miners are willing to accept your fee the time to get 6 confirmations is doubled on average. That way most users will only pay a fee that enough (but not most) miners will accept. These miners will make more profit (from transactions the majority reject) while only contributing a minority of computer power. So the rest of the miners will have to also accept these low fee transactions, and there is really no motivation for them not to, as the real cost to include a transaction is negligible. But then some miners will try to get an edge by lowering fee requirement even more, and the cycle continues.
Once fees go way down, there is only profit in generating blocks if you can do that easily, but that will destabilize the whole BitCoin concept.
The only thing that can save the day is the minimum fee of 1E-8, since there is no motivation to include a 0 fee transaction.
My suggestion is to change the way block rewards work, so that mining goes on practically forever, and not stopping
~2138. But that's for another topic.

Topic: Mining for fee only is unsustainable. - page 2. (Read 3967 times)