📅 Original date posted:2015-06-19
📝 Original message:On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 11:37 AM, Mike Hearn <mike at plan99.net> wrote:
>> Or alternatively, fix the reasons why users would have negative
>> experiences with full blocks
>
>
> It's impossible, Mark. By definition if Bitcoin does not have sufficient
> capacity for everyone's transactions, some users who were using it will be
> kicked out to make way for the others. Whether that happens in some kind of
> stable organised way or (as with the current code) a fairly chaotic way
> doesn't change the fundamental truth: some users will find their bitcoin
> savings have become uneconomic to spend.
He doesn't mean that: he means solving the mempool and crashes and
hitting the limit would have.
If the chain has limited size it is a scarce resource and people have
to bid for it: nothing unexpected or wrong about that.
Of course, people that believe the limit should be completely removed
eventually because they don't care about mining being decentralized
(or fail to see the relation between the two) may have a very
different view about this.
On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 12:08 PM, GC <slashdevnull at hotmail.com> wrote:
> Timeframe for transaction fees topping block reward fees => many years in
> the future, based on current ratio of block reward to fees.
Do you think that this ratio is unrelated to an abundant (non-scarce)
block size?
When is the right time to allow space pressure to rise that ratio?
When the subsidy is at 1.5625, for example, it may be too late to
start a non-catastrophic transition from subsidies to fees.
I don't claim to know that, but it's something that worries me.
No matter how many people say "that's too far away in the future to
worry about it", I still worry about it and I'm sure more people do.
What if "when it's time to care about it" we discover that we should
have started to do things about it long ago to minimize the risks of
this transition?
Jorge Timón [ARCHIVE] /
npub1fx…cl2d8
2023-06-07 15:38:38
in reply to nevent1q…2d2g
Author Public Key
npub1fx98zxt3lzspjs5f4msr0fxysx5euucm29ghysryju7vpc9j0jzqtcl2d8Published at
2023-06-07 15:38:38Event JSON
{
"id": "9624d2c4758bda89bbe05aa671ad5e9731a8cd701a35d760e5473dc48e56cc47",
"pubkey": "498a711971f8a0194289aee037a4c481a99e731b5151724064973cc0e0b27c84",
"created_at": 1686152318,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"23c1bb2f25b9e7356b48aa2a86751c4f26fb3977b440917a1cb3512c200b0b2f",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"4cab99aa5a04e1db61a784af41a97259c0a6e08c63b860c1ced418fcfd5151e8",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"e899768d254f3537af7e26455968583632d0ab0bd4c780445eacfa087ac80d8f"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-06-19\n📝 Original message:On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 11:37 AM, Mike Hearn \u003cmike at plan99.net\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\u003e Or alternatively, fix the reasons why users would have negative\n\u003e\u003e experiences with full blocks\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e It's impossible, Mark. By definition if Bitcoin does not have sufficient\n\u003e capacity for everyone's transactions, some users who were using it will be\n\u003e kicked out to make way for the others. Whether that happens in some kind of\n\u003e stable organised way or (as with the current code) a fairly chaotic way\n\u003e doesn't change the fundamental truth: some users will find their bitcoin\n\u003e savings have become uneconomic to spend.\n\nHe doesn't mean that: he means solving the mempool and crashes and\nhitting the limit would have.\nIf the chain has limited size it is a scarce resource and people have\nto bid for it: nothing unexpected or wrong about that.\nOf course, people that believe the limit should be completely removed\neventually because they don't care about mining being decentralized\n(or fail to see the relation between the two) may have a very\ndifferent view about this.\n\nOn Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 12:08 PM, GC \u003cslashdevnull at hotmail.com\u003e wrote:\n\u003e Timeframe for transaction fees topping block reward fees =\u003e many years in\n\u003e the future, based on current ratio of block reward to fees.\n\nDo you think that this ratio is unrelated to an abundant (non-scarce)\nblock size?\nWhen is the right time to allow space pressure to rise that ratio?\nWhen the subsidy is at 1.5625, for example, it may be too late to\nstart a non-catastrophic transition from subsidies to fees.\nI don't claim to know that, but it's something that worries me.\nNo matter how many people say \"that's too far away in the future to\nworry about it\", I still worry about it and I'm sure more people do.\nWhat if \"when it's time to care about it\" we discover that we should\nhave started to do things about it long ago to minimize the risks of\nthis transition?",
"sig": "6d3120e6a1c8adf6dbeb5bb5d072da7531595de73b6f25be6ff780432843e355ba6cba4fa5266f7aeecda37c68713ea1ea2b01e6891406b888cb5ec8ee45cb96"
}