📅 Original date posted:2015-07-30
📝 Original message:On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 3:14 PM, Tom Harding via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> On 7/29/2015 9:48 PM, Ryan Butler via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> ... more evidence that conclusively refutes the conjecture that a
> production quota is necessary for a "functioning fee market." A
> production quota merely pushes up fees. We have a functioning market,
> and so far, it shows that wider bitcoin usage is even more effective
> than a quota at pushing up fees.
The blocksize limit (your "production quota") is necessary for
decentralization, not for having a functioning fee market.
But I have the hope that hitting the limit would help with getting rid
of all that special-case or at least would encourage miners to
implement their own policies.
If we can agree that hitting the limit will JUST cause higher fees and
not bitcoin to fail, puppies to die or the sky to turn purple I think
that's a great step forward in this debate.
>From that perspective, hitting the limit is not something terribly bad
(as said, I think it can even have positive consequences; for example,
higher fees may be just what is needed for more scalable solutions
[like payment channels] to be adopted by bitcoin companies). Hitting
the limit may produce a more healthy market, but it is true that a
market for fast confirmations already exists.
Unless we want to completely get rid of the blocksize limit (which I
would consider another debate entirely), we will eventually hit the
limit anyway. Why not now so that we can make sure the software is
completely compatible with having a limit?
Why we can hit the limit eventually but not now?
(As said, unless you think the limit should be completely removed forever).
Jorge Timón [ARCHIVE] /
npub1fx…cl2d8
2023-06-07 15:44:09
in reply to nevent1q…hnkv
Author Public Key
npub1fx98zxt3lzspjs5f4msr0fxysx5euucm29ghysryju7vpc9j0jzqtcl2d8Published at
2023-06-07 15:44:09Event JSON
{
"id": "90c550980129cc3d49b9e1cf8c3b86c7cdc192fae84d0cf63b88a01c796b50ca",
"pubkey": "498a711971f8a0194289aee037a4c481a99e731b5151724064973cc0e0b27c84",
"created_at": 1686152649,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"f50f9a9f011937f80dce086e8d3558ea890e1242174d35cd681a942d8400d509",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"e5b5a7733a13b80d3cd4e3d8b18398d9ca2ac153d8db0ae44cdf8badbd7691c4",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"dc329a02c970aabf03b87185ef51c86afe4586fe3a148508af898af3fabc56a3"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-07-30\n📝 Original message:On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 3:14 PM, Tom Harding via bitcoin-dev\n\u003cbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e On 7/29/2015 9:48 PM, Ryan Butler via bitcoin-dev wrote:\n\u003e ... more evidence that conclusively refutes the conjecture that a\n\u003e production quota is necessary for a \"functioning fee market.\" A\n\u003e production quota merely pushes up fees. We have a functioning market,\n\u003e and so far, it shows that wider bitcoin usage is even more effective\n\u003e than a quota at pushing up fees.\n\nThe blocksize limit (your \"production quota\") is necessary for\ndecentralization, not for having a functioning fee market.\nBut I have the hope that hitting the limit would help with getting rid\nof all that special-case or at least would encourage miners to\nimplement their own policies.\nIf we can agree that hitting the limit will JUST cause higher fees and\nnot bitcoin to fail, puppies to die or the sky to turn purple I think\nthat's a great step forward in this debate.\n\u003eFrom that perspective, hitting the limit is not something terribly bad\n(as said, I think it can even have positive consequences; for example,\nhigher fees may be just what is needed for more scalable solutions\n[like payment channels] to be adopted by bitcoin companies). Hitting\nthe limit may produce a more healthy market, but it is true that a\nmarket for fast confirmations already exists.\n\nUnless we want to completely get rid of the blocksize limit (which I\nwould consider another debate entirely), we will eventually hit the\nlimit anyway. Why not now so that we can make sure the software is\ncompletely compatible with having a limit?\nWhy we can hit the limit eventually but not now?\n\n(As said, unless you think the limit should be completely removed forever).",
"sig": "b735b4a331219bd8af2c1ea5d0512879c3515c1ccde369ac357c1144e34e0580c5ca2aa2fa9a0f8fa1d9ffd7756b528373f16df4e1c76845b3c852e67c6a99ca"
}