Michel 'ic' Luczak [ARCHIVE] / is on Nostr

⚠️ This account is not associated with a real person. It's an archival account for mailing list messages.
🗓️ Active from 2017-12-21 to 2017-12-21
💬 Posted a total of 1 messages
📚 Participated in the following categories:
🔇 Please do not DM this user as it's used for archive purposes only.

Last Notes

2023-06-07 18:08:58

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2017-12-21
📝 Original message:Hi,
This is the first time I post on this list.
First of all, Thank you Jameson for the interview you gave yesterday, it’s been a model of calm and self-control for all of us.
I deeply believe the high average fees we experience right now are mostly due to the miscalculations of most of the hardware (ledger & trezor) wallets (and probably software too) on the market.
I personally made transactions at the worst period for the Blockchain with less than 40 sat/WU of fees and got confirmed in less than a day.
I think there’s a lot of work to do in used education to make them understand that for a low amount of fees they can still get a transaction confirmed and that’s the POS’ work to make sure the transaction is legit.
Regards, Michel.
> On 21 Dec 2017, at 23:02, Jameson Lopp via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> I'd hope that the incentives are in place to encourage high volume senders to be more efficient in their use of block space by batching transactions and implementing SegWit, though this may not be the case for providers that pass transaction fees along to their users.
>
> We've been trying to be more proactive about outreach regarding efficient use of block space to our own customers at BitGo - when we break down the cost savings of implementing a new technique, it generally helps to hasten their adoption. I suspect that in many cases this is an issue of education - we should be more proactive in calling out inefficient uses of block space.
>
> Good resources to bookmark and share:
>
> https://bitcointechtalk.com/saving-up-to-80-on-bitcoin-transaction-fees-by-batching-payments-4147ab7009fb <https://bitcointechtalk.com/saving-up-to-80-on-bitcoin-transaction-fees-by-batching-payments-4147ab7009fb>
>
> https://blog.zebpay.com/how-zebpay-reduced-bitcoin-transaction-fees-a9e24c788598 <https://blog.zebpay.com/how-zebpay-reduced-bitcoin-transaction-fees-a9e24c788598>
>
> - Jameson
>
> On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 4:30 PM, Melvin Carvalho via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org <mailto:bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org>> wrote:
> I asked adam back at hcpp how the block chain would be secured in the long term, once the reward goes away. The base idea has always been that fees would replace the block reward.
>
> At that time fees were approximately 10% of the block reward, but have now reached 45%, with 50% potentially being crossed soon
>
> https://fork.lol/reward/feepct <https://fork.lol/reward/feepct>
>
> While this bodes well for the long term security of the coin, I think there is some legitimate concern that the fee per tx is prohibitive for some use cases, at this point in the adoption curve.
>
> Observations of segwit adoption show around 10% at this point
>
> http://segwit.party/charts/ <http://segwit.party/charts/>
>
> Watching the mempool shows that the congestion is at a peak, though it's quite possible this will come down over the long weekend. I wonder if this is of concern to some.
>
> https://dedi.jochen-hoenicke.de/queue/more/#24h <https://dedi.jochen-hoenicke.de/queue/more/#24h>
>
> I thought these data points may be of interest and are mainly FYI. Though if further discussion is deemed appropriate, it would be interesting to hear thoughts.
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org <mailto:bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org>
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20171222/9bafeb37/attachment.html>

2023-06-07 18:08:58

- reply