Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking &amp; discussion - page 19103. (Read 26608322 times)

Quote from: ahpku on March 05, 2016, 07:26:06 AM

...
I'm not worried. Just pointing out the obvious pattern:

"Oh I can't tolerate BTC that has a fee market, it's unacceptable if fees go up, the solution to spam can't be to make txs more expensive" ...

Not sure where you're getting this. Most are fine with having a "fee market." It's creating demand by imposing production quotas (1MB cap) that most don't want.

Criticism varies.

"Ohhh my tx didn't go in with 1c", "bitcoin is unreliable because fees fluctuate", "I don't want a fee market because it excludes the poor", "3tx/s are too little", "fuck the 1mb central planners" etc etc.

To replace subsidy you'd need 100MB blocks, assuming that there is 100x demand, and that the quality of this demand is on par with our current top-tier urgent txs that are paying 0.06$ per tx.

The problem is that 100MB blocks don't work. And it's not "Core's fault". And it's not like Gavin Andersen or Classic can make them work either. This type of size will eventually work as software and hardware technology evolves.

You might have accidentally missed the emboldened bit, so I'll repost:

... And if Core is so eager for the fees market to develop, WTF are they working on Segwit (which will, purportedly, increase the number of tx per solved block)?
Will miners start excluding "spam" transactions once segwit is implemented? If so, why?

>To replace subsidy you'd need 100MB blocks
And Core is addressing this ...how?

>The problem is that 100MB blocks don't work.
They wouldn't work today. By the time Bitcoin's block rewards have ended, it should be trivial. No?

AlexGR

legendary

Activity: 1708

Merit: 1049

Quote from: ahpku on March 05, 2016, 07:26:06 AM

Not sure where you're getting this. Most are fine with having a "fee market." It's creating demand by imposing production quotas (1MB cap) that most don't want.

Ibian

legendary

Activity: 2268

Merit: 1278

Look, the whole complaint about the spam thing is retarded. The moment we start deciding what is considered a "legit" transaction and enforcing it we no longer have a decentralized network. Any transaction that the miners are willing to spend electricity on is as good as any other, or the whole experiment is a failure.

barbs

hero member

Activity: 854

Merit: 1000

Anyone buying bitcoins at 400$+ is irresponsibile and deserves to lose their money.

ahpku

sr. member

Activity: 294

Merit: 250

Quote from: nioc on March 05, 2016, 07:06:41 AM

Not sure where you're getting this. Most are fine with having a "fee market." It's creating demand by imposing production quotas (1MB cap) that most don't want.

You might be missing the point.
It's not that the fees are high, but that they'd have to be ~$6.00 per tx, at current exchange rate and current block size limit, for Bitcoin to stop relying on subsidies (block reward). $6 per transaction, with BTC exchange rate @ $400, is too damn high.

And if Core is so eager for the fees market to develop, WTF are they working on Segwit (which will, purportedly, increase the number of tx per solved block)?
Will miners start excluding "spam" transactions once segwit is implemented? If so, why?

AlexGR

legendary

Activity: 1708

Merit: 1049

Not sure where you're getting this. Most are fine with having a "fee market." It's creating demand by imposing production quotas (1MB cap) that most don't want.

3tx/s are too little, 3tx/s are too little, 3tx/s are too little, 3tx/s are too little

It's all relative depending the actual use.
If they are too little, how come the demand for these 3tx/s be so low as to pay only 1-2 cents and/or have issues like wasting these transactions in spamming, moving dust, having gambling micro-txs etc....

Actual demand is lower than these 3tx/s, and the rest (up to the limit) is filled with near-zero-paying crap. That's why there is no serious impact on the fee market. That's why dust continues to move. That's why spammers continue to spam and move coins from here to there to here to there, in a loop, just because they can spam the network and do so at a near zero cost.

ahpku

sr. member

Activity: 294

Merit: 250

Cconvert2G36, disregard. When I'm wrong I'm wrong.

Quote from: ?? on ??

The mods are counting words. Fewer than X words = spam. If you wish for your post to be considered !spam, add moar words.

nioc

legendary

Activity: 1624

Merit: 1008

Quote from: tyz on March 05, 2016, 06:08:47 AM

Not sure where you're getting this. Most are fine with having a "fee market." It's creating demand by imposing production quotas (1MB cap) that most don't want.

3tx/s are too little, 3tx/s are too little, 3tx/s are too little, 3tx/s are too little

ChartBuddy

legendary

Activity: 2380

Merit: 1823

1CBuddyxy4FerT3hzMmi1Jz48ESzRw1ZzZ

Coin

Explanation

becoin

legendary

Activity: 3431

Merit: 1233

In a worst case, let’s say that 50% of hashing power turns off at the block halving because it is no longer profitable for those miners. This would mean that we start getting blocks mined every 20 minutes on average instead of 10 minutes. But blocks are already 70% full today. If the average confirmation time goes to 20 minutes, it means that we will be at 140% of capacity on every block, and start accumulating a backlog."

This is why tx fees should go up. It is so simple. This crackhead doesn't understand what he is talking about.

AlexGR

legendary

Activity: 1708

Merit: 1049

Not sure where you're getting this. Most are fine with having a "fee market." It's creating demand by imposing production quotas (1MB cap) that most don't want.

ahpku

sr. member

Activity: 294

Merit: 250