Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 19062. (Read 26609512 times)

That's like saying it's not possible to have a McLaren F1 without the Ameritech front bumperettes and a 1.8L. It is, and it's worth insisting on.

Oh wise central planners. Please pick the best arbitrary economic variables possible... and only with unanimous neckbeard consensus in irc. These miners are hell bent on choking out this golden goose given the chance.

You keep looking but you can't find the woods
While you're hiding in the trees

Due to economy of scale and some miners having lower verification costs, it creates a race to the bottom of purging all but the most efficient miner (centralization).  With increasing block sizes, there would likely be some huge miner that accepts 0.00000001 fee transactions while doing so would cause others to go bankrupt.  Or the mega miner could just accept tiny or 0 fee transactions in the short term in order to bankrupt opponents.  Hence a minimum transaction fee puts a floor on how low of a race to the bottom tactic you can enact.  

Minimum transaction fee is the spam prevention mechanism of Bitcoin, not block size!  The miners are unable to create one themselves because it would require collusion and it's also an attack vector they use against each other!  That is why I say developers have to create a minimum transaction fee for each block size interval they set in order to scale Bitcoin.

Due to economy of scale and some miners having lower verification costs, it creates a race to the bottom of purging all but the most efficient miner (centralization).  With increasing block sizes, there would likely be some huge miner that accepts 0.00000001 fee transactions while doing so would cause others to go bankrupt.  Or the mega miner could just accept tiny or 0 fee transactions in the short term in order to bankrupt opponents.  Hence a minimum transaction fee puts a floor on how low of a race to the bottom tactic you can enact.  

Minimum transaction fee is the spam prevention mechanism of Bitcoin, not block size!  The miners are unable to create one themselves because it would require collusion and it's also an attack vector they use against each other!  That is why I say developers have to create a minimum transaction fee for each block size interval they set in order to scale Bitcoin.

I don't believe the tragedy of the commons argument is a valid one because Bitcoin never existed in "the commons" as something like a lake in the first place due to one obvious reason, it's a for-profit system managed by central bankers.  For Bitcoin to not have central bankers, it would require no maximum block size and no min transaction fee.  The problem here is, one of those variables is required to be constrained to prevent spam attacks, so you'll always have central bankers in Bitcoin.

The current devs seem obsessed with utilizing block size as the spam prevention mechanism of Bitcoin solely to try and give the appearance of Bitcoin having no central bankers, when block size is only arbitrary throughput constraint.  Minimum transaction fee is the real spam prevention tool for the job.  They just haven't utilized it because they want to pretend there's no central bankers in the system when it's obviously required.

From a miner's perspective, it's in their best interest to vote for the highest minimum transaction fee that the network will bear.  From a developer's engineering viewpoint, it's in their interest to set it to a level to prevent spam or attacks from constantly filling up blocks to create a permanent backlog.  They both have authority to do so, and both of these interests clearly point to a minimum transaction fee higher than zero, so a Bitcoin dev that isn't advocating a minimum transaction fee for each block size interval isn't fulfilling his role well IMO.

If you take these previous points as fact, there will obviously not be any marginal cost doomsday event by raising block size because the system already required central bankers to work in the first place.  Whether you agree or disagree about millions of other Larimer issues, he got it right when saying Bitcoin is a decentralized business or corporation, not a public good.  My semantics might also be wrong and you might be able to classify them as "decentralized bankers".  It's kind of unknown territory.  Regardless, there is governance and profit structure built in where it's not an unmanaged dumping ground.