On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 6:12 AM, Lucas Clemente Vella via bitcoin-discuss <[email protected]> wrote: > If there isn't a consensus that it is okay to fail to supply the demand for > Bitcoin transactions, it can only be explained as a failure to see the > logical connections between what you called "two differente things". The > dynamics of Bitcoin economy changed completely when miners stopped to > confirm transactions that they were willing to do, but couldn't due to > protocol limitations. If every pending transaction in mempool today paid a > fee every miner was willing to accept, many of them would still remain > unconfirmed indefinitely. That was different with the demand of two years > ago, where the only valid transactions not getting confirmed were the ones > failing to meet the fee threshold the miner was willing to accept.
I believe you are misunderstanding the situation. The miners are willing to mine *any* transaction at *any* fee, if it means their revenue increases (the altruistic behavior of the past is probably of the past). If we allowed blocks to be infinitely sized, the miners would mine all transactions always, as that would maximize their profit. This means users would have no incentive whatsoever to pay higher than the minimum fee, because their transactions would be mined in the next block anyway, regardless. Note that user fees are currently ~11% of the total revenue of miners (the remaining 89% being the subsidy), and this would have to rise to ~55% in 2020 at the next subsidy halving, to retain the current pay-out of btc per block. I'm not saying we must retain that amount for the miners, but I think any changes to the fee system need to take this into consideration. -Kalle. _______________________________________________ bitcoin-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-discuss
