2017-11-30 23:42 GMT-02:00 アルム カールヨハン <[email protected]>:
> 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. > This concern weakly explains my initial claim that consensus revolves around being OK to push users and economic activities out of Bitcoin: the need to keep the total reward after the next subsidy halving. I say weakly because the real value of the reward is not measured in BTC, but in whatever currency the miners' electricity and equipment is valued. Considering that, miners reward per block in the last year alone increased tenfold, while not changing that drastically in total amount of BTC received. If we then consider the hypothetical scenario where Bitcoin had not driven users away, and maintained its economical properties of low fees and fast transactions for the ever increasing demand for cryptocurrency, it is quite probable it would still retain 80%+ of the total crypto market cap, market that would be probably bigger now, with no civil war and the flagship of the cryptocurrency growing at full speed. Miner's reward per block would easily be worth 2 times what it is by now, although probably with a smaller absolute amount of BTC. Extrapolating this scenario to the halving in 2020, and assuming Bitcoin value wouldn't suddenly rise due to lowered supply, miner count would probably drop, but drop to a value orders of magnitude higher it will probably have by following this current path of strangled growth. -- Lucas Clemente Vella [email protected]
_______________________________________________ bitcoin-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-discuss
