Topic: Permanently keeping the 1MB (anti-spam) restriction is a great idea ... - page 20. (Read 105082 times)

Sorry - but that makes *zero* sense (especially as I stated that I am not against raising the 1 MB limit in the first place).

We have instead a *feedback* process. LOWER fees (not ZERO fees) means LESS mining (not NO mining) which in turn means LONGER confirmation times (not COMPLETE COLLAPSE) which leads to MORE FEES which leads to mining power switching back on.

You're not just limiting the amount of transactions per block, you're limiting the development of potential services of tomorrow.

What makes you think that? Miners won't include spam transactions without fee's or dusting.

This statement is just *wrong* (and is itself a straw-man argument).

With other blockchains that also work trustlessly why on earth is anyone being pushed to rely on trusted 3rd parties?

Of course they are not (OP should fix that IMO).

In absence of a block size limit,

This is only true if the per transaction fee is not zero.
In absence of a block size limit, there is no incentive to pay fee. Any positive fee would have to be enforced by a cartel of miner.

Your second and third paragraph contradict each other.

Transaction fees don't ONLY exist because there is a competition for block space. They ALSO exist to pay the miners to secure the network, as you clearly understood before you implicitly denied it. Fees are not an either/or thing. It absolutely ISN'T a case of lifting block limit->eliminates fees->eliminates mining.

We have instead a *feedback* process. LOWER fees (not ZERO fees) means LESS mining (not NO mining) which in turn means LONGER confirmation times (not COMPLETE COLLAPSE) which leads to MORE FEES which leads to mining power switching back on. It's what engineers call a negative feedback loop, designed to keep the hashing rate broadly stable, or at least oscillating within a fairly narrow range.

People really must stop thinking of all the causes and effects in the world as being ON/OFF switches. They aren't. They're analogue dials.

[If you're on board with the idea of bitcoin, you've probably had to deal with people saying a deflationary money supply can't work because NOBODY would ever spend ANY MONEY AT ALL. Same problem. "Less" is not the same as "none". Especially when "Less X" induces "Less Y" which induces "More X".]
 

This is only true if the per transaction fee is not zero.
In absence of a block size limit, there is no incentive to pay fee. Any positive fee would have to be enforced by a cartel of miner.

In absence of a block size limit, there is no incentive to pay fee.

A limit with thousands of tps will undoubtedly produce more fees for miners than a limit capping the network at 3 tps.

The problem isn't a limit in general but that 1MB is so low that under any meaningful adoption scenario it will push all individual users off the blockchain to rely on trusted third parties.

A limit with thousands of tps will undoubtedly produce more fees for miners than a limit capping the network at 3 tps.

The problem isn't a limit in general but that 1MB is so low that under any meaningful adoption scenario it will push all individual users off the blockchain to rely on trusted third parties.

you just assume all miners will allow a low fee, but that simply won't be the case.

because it's not sustainable.

Are you really this stupid or are you just trolling?

by the way if miners dont make the rules, who do?

What makes you think that? Miners won't include spam transactions without fee's or dusting.

Couple of quick questions, does it allow trades between one chain and another to be bundled together into single transactions? I'm thinking to allow large amounts of transactions on low cost chains to be carried out as a single transaction on a busy chain. And does it allow something like a meshnet of chains? Transaction fees for incentivisation is another but I'll have a read through first.

Whilst I am not against raising the 1 MB limit I do think that this idea that their should be "only 1 chain" is actually rather "stupid".

The very point of decentralisation is not to have a single point of failure - yet this is constantly what Bitcoin is trying to do (set itself up as the single point of failure).

I don't see the future as being just Bitcoin but in fact numerous blockchains that you'll use if you want (making this whole storage issue really a pointless argument).

There is a clear path to scaling up the network to handle several thousand transactions per second (“Visa scale”). Getting there won’t be trivial, because writing solid, secure code takes time and because getting consensus is hard. Fortunately technological progress marches on, and Nielsen’s Law of Internet Bandwidth and Moore’s Law make scaling up easier as time passes.

The map gets fuzzy if we start thinking about how to scale faster than the 50%-per-increase-in-bandwidth-per-year of Nielsen’s Law. Some complicated scheme to avoid broadcasting every transaction to every node is probably possible to implement and make secure enough.

But 50% per year growth is really good. According to my rough back-of-the-envelope calculations, my above-average home Internet connection and above-average home computer could easily support 5,000 transactions per second today.

That works out to 400 million transactions per day. Pretty good; every person in the US could make one Bitcoin transaction per day and I’d still be able to keep up.

After 12 years of bandwidth growth that becomes 56 billion transactions per day on my home network connection — enough for every single person in the world to make five or six bitcoin transactions every single day. It is hard to imagine that not being enough; according the the Boston Federal Reserve, the average US consumer makes just over two payments per day.

So even if everybody in the world switched entirely from cash to Bitcoin in twenty years, broadcasting every transaction to every fully-validating node won’t be a problem.

Free (literally) space will be filled, no worries. Very fast.