Bitcoin Forum

Nắm bắt được nhu cầu ngày càng cao hiện nay, Ngân hàng thịnh vượng Việt Nam VP Bank đang chạy chương trình hỗ trợ gói vốn vay tín chấp với lãi suất ưu đãi, nhằm mang lại nhiều sự phục vụ hơn cho khách hàng, hỗ trợ họ về mặt tài chính, nhưng do nhu cầu quá cao, nên rất nhiều vấn đề phát sinh. Tuy vay tín chấp có thủ tục đơn giản nhưng cũng có không ít điều cần phải tìm hiểu kí trước khi đi vay. Để làm điều đó, các khách hàng hãy click here (http://vaynhanh24h.com) để biết thêm chi tiết nhé. Hiện nay, các tổ chức tín dụng lần lượt ra đời, nổi trội lên đó là prudential finance, tổ chức tín dụng chuyên hỗ trợ gói vốn vay tín chấp. Vay tín chấp có cái mặt lợi và mặt hại riêng của nó, khi đi vay, chúng ta sẽ không thế chấp bất kì loại tài sản nào, hơn nữa thủ tục lại đơn giản, gọn lẹ, và thời gian giải ngân nhanh hơn. Tuy nhiên, lãi suất chắc chắn sẽ cao hơn bình thường và thường dao động từ 1.76%-2.95%. Bên cạnh đó số tiền vay tối đa sẽ giảm đi rất nhiều, điều này cũng dễ hiểu, nhằm hạn chế thấp nhất sự rủi ro. Quay trở lại với phần lãi suất, tất cả các tổ chức tín dụng đều có mức lãi suất tương đương nhau, và nhiều khách hàng cho rằng mức đó đang “cao ngất ngưỡng”, điều này dấy lên nhiều làn sóng, thông tin trái chiều nhau, gây ra không ít sự hỗn loạn. Khi đi vay, các khách hàng sẽ được tư vấn một mức lãi suất khá thấp, làm hài lòng không ít người nhưng thực trả lại cao hơn nhiều, gây nhiều phiền phức cho họ. Nhưng không phải tổ chức tín dụng nào cũng vậy, trong số đo vẫn nổi lên rất  nhiều tổ chức tín dụng uy tín như: prudential là điển hình, hay fecredit, saigon hd...

Vay vốn ngân hàng[/center]

Điểm chung của các tổ chức này là đều có mức tư vấn lãi suất gần như ngang bằng với giá thực ra. Nhưng dù sao, để đảm bảo, thì người đi vay phải nắm rõ đầy đủ thông tin về hình thức vay và đặc biệt là lãi suất vay. Để làm được điều đó, các bạn hãy truy cập vào link sau: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/vay-tin-chap-ngan-hang-lai-suat-thap-nhat-vay-nhanh (https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/vay-tin-chap-ngan-hang-lai-suat-thap-nhat-vay-nhanh). Trong các gói sản phẩm hỗ trợ vay tín chấp, thì vay tiêu dùng luôn là hình thức được nhiều người đón nhận nhất, bởi vì trong cuộc sống ngày càng phát triển, hiện đại, nhu cầu tiêu dùng cá nhân càng tăng cao, nên nhiều người đã tìm đến hình thức vay tiêu dùng cá nhân. Khi hình thức vay tiêu dùng được ngân hàng nhà nước duyệt, thì nhanh chóng các tổ chức tín dụng bùng nổ gói vốn vay này, tuy nhiên các gói vốn vay này đều đồng loạt có lãi suất khá cao, dao động từ 30%-40%, nếu trả chậm, mức phạt sẽ rất cao và đặc biệt là bị nợ xấu, nợ đen, gây ảnh hưởng rất lớn sau này.

Vay tín chấp của ngân hàng[/center]

Tất cả những lí do này đã gây áp lực nặng nề lên các tổ chức tín dụng và cả những người đi vay. Bên cạnh đó, với hình thức xét duyệt đơn giản, chỉ cần có chứng minh nhân dân, sổ hộ khẩu, ảnh 3x4 và một loại giấy tờ chứng minh thu nhập bản thân là bạn có thể được giải ngân ngay sau đó. Điều này làm thu hút rất nhiều người, những người có thu nhập thấp, những sinh viên mới ra trường, những doanh nghiệp tổ chức nhỏ muốn đầu tư thêm vốn vào công ty mình...điều này gây nhiều hệ lụy, mà đối tượng phải gánh chịu là những người đi vay. Vì vậy, việc nắm rõ và được tư vấn là nhiệm vụ và quyền lợi của người đi vay, do đó khi đi vay, trở thành bên vay, chúng ta cần nắm rõ các hình thức cũng như thủ tục, đặt biệt là vay nhanh. Và chúng ta nên vay ở các tổ chức uy tín như prudential...Để hỗ trợ điều này, các quý khách hãy truy cập vay tín chấp prudential tphcm (https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/vay-tin-chap-prudential-da-nang-tphcm-ha-noi-vay-nhanh) để tìm hiểu nhé. a

Block size is important and it is the dilemma that bitcoin transactions is having right now and that were the developers is making improvements on, in upgrading for much bigger block size to cope up for faster and cheaper transactions again.

Each block of bitcoin contains 1MB of data, meaning that the block size of bitcoin is 1 megabyte. This means that there is a limit to how many transactions can fit in Bitcoin's blocks. And with this issue being said I think most of against this change is the small time miners because getting a larger size requires another good hardware to mine upgraded block size.

If we don't embrace the changes that's the only intention is for good then Bitcoin's future is in jeopardy. It's either we change or other will do it for us.
Changes is inevitable though.

You are correct. While doubling the blocksize, or even quadrupling it for that matter may help in the short run, down the road it will not make a lick of a difference. It is a very temporary solution to a long-term problem. This is why we need to seriously explore the other options rather than put a bandaid on this open wound. Let's just solve it once and for all, so we no longer need to have these discussions.

It looks bad on the community and Bitcoin as a whole when we become divided like this. We must unite, rather than what we are doing now.

Block size is very important as it is relate to confirmation time for every transaction, look at this (https://blockchain.info/unconfirmed-transactions --- https://blockchain.info/charts/transactions-per-second) you will see that 2,11 transaction/sec and how much unconfirmed transaction? over 9,3K right now. Community want faster confirmation time, if there are too many unconfirmed transactions people will add more fee in order to make it confirmed even faster than any other low fees transactions. Because current problems of bitcoin are, people should pay high fees and wait for long time to get it confirmed. So, we need bigger block size to take more transactions, included into blockchain and hopefully we will pay normal fees such as before.

a dynamic blocksize will be fine ,the arguments against solutions like BU are nonsense
no miner will ever attempt to mine a block thats too big for the network to handle

but segwit2x comes with a series of progressional  hardforks to get to a 16MB blocksize by summer 2019

i personally rather a solution that doesnt have segwit but if 90% of the miners and businesses want segwit2x
then we have to go along for the ride

I think people are being disingenuous about this. Bitcoin can't scale to mass usage with a 2MB block or an 8MB block or even larger. An additional network will be needed for Bitcoin to truly scale. The Lightning Network is one option but others could also possibly work.

If it was not important, then Satoshi would not have included it in his code. SegWit with Snorr Signatures are trying to reduce the size of the data being added to the tx's and the Blockchain, so it is not just addressing the larger Block size needed for increased adoption. The Big Blockers are focusing on only increasing the Block size and I think that is a bit short sighted. You have to tackle this issue from more than one angle and also constantly increase the Block size as Satoshi suggested. ^smile^ 

There is no way to solve every future problem bitcoin network might have with just one solution or update. Segwit2x is designed to solve current block size issue so that bitcoin will again be cheaper and faster like before.

You couldn't be more right


The storage space is the means, not the end. Transactions per second is what's actually important.


Storage space is not the only means to increase the transaction rate. It may be the most effective force multiplier, but it's equally effective at persuading users to not run a Bitcoin full node. And the network of Bitcoin full nodes is what makes everyone's BTC valuable, so we depend on getting the balance between transaction space and a decentralised Bitcoin network exactly right. This means the blocksize has to be as close as possible to exactly the right size to reflect that balancing act.

you say it it's how many tx per secodn you can sustain, which is the point of having an additional space in the block size, but this isn't a good solution for solving the issue

because if we need more space we then need to fork again to increase it another time, we need a solution that can be conclusive for any numbers of TX we need to sustain

and LN isn't the only one, there was another proposal regarding the block like Extension block

Bitcoin is facing a problem because its designer didn't know how to solve this problem, and in fact, the very first discussion points with Satoshi were exactly about this: in a system where every user is supposed to be aware of every transaction of every other user (which was the basic core idea of bitcoin), if this system grows, how are you going to cope with the extra demand on network resources, computing resources and storage resources *for every user* ?

This is the famous "block chain scaling problem".  However, is it really a problem, and is the resource problem the core of the problem ?

The answer to both is "no".  There is no actual resource problem in scaling, and it is not the true problem at all.  There ARE other problems, related to this, though, but the resource problem is a false problem.

Why ?

First of all, because the scaling is not infinite.  There is a finite amount of potential users of bitcoin.   Even if this finite amount is big, and is reached, the resource problem is not RIDICULOUSLY large.  Satoshi pointed out in 2008, that one can expect, IF EVER BITCOIN IS GOING TO BE A WORLD CURRENCY, to have about 1 GB blocks.

1 GB blocks, even though large, is not ridiculously large.  1 GB every 10 minutes, is of the order of 150 GB a day, or ~1 TB a week.  While this is a lot for an average user, this is not ridiculously large, and by the time IF EVER, bitcoin is going to become a world currency, this technical problem will not be significant.

Most probably, bitcoin will NOT become a world currency, simply because it has been designed as a speculative gambling token, and NOT as an ideal currency.  So we are considering most probably a problem in a case that will not happen ; and if it happens, but sufficiently far in the future (say, 15 years from now), it won't even be a technical problem.

In other words, we are right now thinking about something that is a technical non-problem, for an improbable situation (namely, where bitcoin were going to be a world currency, while it is ill-designed for that purpose in any case).

The second answer Satoshi provided, which is very true, is that NOT EVERY USER NEEDS A FULL COPY OF THE BLOCK CHAIN.   There is no use for that.  If there are A FEW servers of the same block chain around, every user only needs a VERY TINY PART of that block chain, namely, what a light wallet uses: the SPV protocol.

The whole argument for the need for decentralization to have all Joe's using bitcoin to have a copy of the whole chain in their basement, is bogus, because the only DECIDERS on the block chain are the miners.  Joe's server in his basement serves no decentralization purpose.  Joe has nothing to say, even if he copies all the Petabytes of the hypothetical mega block chain.

So:

1) most probably bitcoin will not NEED TO SCALE to full currency usage scale, because bitcoin is ill defined as a currency (it is a speculative token for speculators, not a currency for buying coffee - it is not ideal money).

2) even if it were to scale, which is improbable, if it does it in the sufficient future (say, 15 years), the technical burden is not gigantic for users that want to copy the block chain.

3) users don't even need to copy the block chain.  Only a few servers doing so is enough for SPV wallets to function correctly.  There's no power to be had by having a copy of the unique block chain over which one has, in any case, nothing to say if one is not a miner.

==> the whole discussion about decentralization and resources and so on is a FALSE PROBLEM.

But what is the REAL PROBLEM ?

The real problem is the remuneration of the miners when the block reward runs out, and the game-theoretical aspects that follow from that.  Without a block size limit that creates artificial transaction scarcity, miners cannot force users to compete for a scarce resource, and will not get paid enough to secure the block chain with the silly PoW security.  Moreover, without fees, the block chain room becomes a resource that will be wasted by spam or many parasitic applications.

The problem that Satoshi didn't know how to solve and which has no good game-theoretical solution in the frame of the (silly) economic rules that Satoshi gave to bitcoin, is: how to secure the chain when the block reward runs out ?  THIS is the real problem.  Nobody knows how to solve it in a satisfactory way with PoW and sound money theory.

This is what will kill bitcoin in the end.  Not the mumbo jumbo about resources or decentralisation.  These are straw man arguments to keep people away from the true problem.

This is the kind of analysis and thinking that would have led to the 1988 version of the internet to scale to about 10,000 users at any one time by the year 2017.

Actually, I am wrong. According to your last paragraph, the internet would have scaled to zero users by 2017.

Bitcoin needs more Al Gore's, fewer you's.

In fact, it is entirely the opposite.  Bitcoin's block chain limit to 1MB is akin to specifying that IP addresses shouldn't be more than 16 bit, because otherwise, poor people with 8-bit processors and 64K ram would have to waste too much memory on IP tables.  It is bitcoin's kind of thinking that was also inspiring Bill Gates to claim that 640 KB or RAM address space is more than enough for a home PC, ever.

The idea that one should put in small hard limits to avoid the need of computing resources (which is the stance of people wanting small blocks) is what would, indeed, have kept the internet to about 10 000 users.  I'm saying exactly the opposite: that there is NO resource problem with bitcoin, and that one is INVENTING a BOGUS resource problem, because EVEN if bitcoin were to go mainstream, by the time it does, the resources needed for that would be available.  I'm telling you that bitcoin has OTHER design problems, that 1) most probably will not make it go mainstream and 2) are fundamentally flawed in the economic design (in fact, 1 and 2 are even related).  Crippling bitcoin even FURTHER because of a NON-EXISTING resource problem, won't help.


If the internet were designed like bitcoin, with hard usage limits in it, yes.  


If bitcoin needs Al Gore's, then that can only confirm my position that it is ill defined  ;D

Bitcoin is ill defined? Maybe. But for a starter it's not so bad.
Unfortunately at this point there's too much money in the game and the changes are made slowly and with extra care, and even so the resistance is huge.
But you are right. Bitcoin is far from perfect (see? it sounds much better than "ill defined") and it still needs to evolve.

Dogecoin may have been designed as "coffee money", something small and inflationary enough to allow everybody have it.
Bitcoin is closer to assets and gold than "coffee money", but since we have so many altcoins it's okay. Really. At least for now. You can buy online goods with Bitcoin, you can pay bills, even paying for hotel rooms is okay, as long as there are no spam attacks.


From what I've read here and there bigger blocks open a door for more problems in Bitcoin, that's why core devs tried to avoid it. Maybe smarter people can tell on better words.
That's why actually and technically block size is important.


Yes, Bitcoin has to support more transactions. Or at least support the real transactions (yeah, I know, how to decide that?).

Back to coffee money.
Even if tomorrow Bitcoin blocksize will not be limited (keep only the technical limitation, 1GB?) it will still not become coffee money. And that's because nobody will wait an average of 20 minutes until a transaction is confirmed. For that another step of evolution is needed.
If Bitcoin does that in time, fine. If it doesn't, still fine, there are plenty of altcoins that want to fill the gap.

Both are important i think sir,block size is just the main problem here because it cant hold up more and more transactions at the same time causing confirmatiojs to get delayed,they need larger block size for transactions to move freely

Bitcoin's monetary model is based upon a bogus application of sound money doctrine, but has no value regulation mechanism in it that tries to make bitcoin keep constant economic value (or slightly and predictably increasing or decreasing value).  In other words, bitcoin has no deflation/inflation control AT ALL, and has fallen into a speculative deflationary spiral.  At the same time, it has suffered HUGE seigniorage.  That's about the worst thing one can have as a "currency".  It is very remote from Nash's "ideal money" that keeps constant economic value, and is hence a risk-less fluidifier of economic transactions, which is what a currency is supposed to be.

It is this SAME sound money doctrine that forces the block rewards to go down, and forces a fee market to emerge, which it only can if transactions are scarce enough so that people pay enough fees to do a lot of PoW by miners.  THIS is the problem that Satoshi didn't solve (and is, as far as I know, not solvable game-theoretically).  There is no way to have a sufficiently lucrative fee market without at the same time having block size limits that make transactions scarce and difficult, but what's worse, there's no known mechanism that can regulate that automatically and is robust against being gamed by the miners, pushing the fees to whatever the market can bear.

Both these aspects make bitcoin into a highly speculative asset that is only good for large transactions where the market can accept huge fees.  But that's reserved for a relatively small set of people, is not going to go mainstream as the world's means of payment, and hence there IS no scaling problem because it won't need to scale to world currency levels of transactions (and, as I said, even if it were, that's not a technical problem if it is a decade or so away ; and even then, it is not a problem because not all users need to run full nodes - only miners and big users like exchanges need to).

Core is saying that because their agenda is to push people off-chain onto their LN.  Gavin was right on that one.  There is NO technical problem with big blocks, but there is a huge economic problem with it if the block rewards run out.

But the LN is dangerous on block-limited systems, because for the LN to be inherently safe, ALL channels must *at any time* be able to settle.  If settlement is limited (by limited blocks), then the LN becomes unsafe.

So it is somehow ironic that Core is pushing for a LARGE LN on a SMALL chain, because that constellation is what makes LN unsafe.  LN would be perfectly safe on UNLIMITED block chains - but then, nobody would use it apart for specific applications like your link to your exchange, but where "multi-hop" links are not needed.

How are you supposed to keep the bitcoin network decentralized if we are having 1GB blocks every 10 minutes? who is the custodial of the network if not a couple of deep pocket corporations and how is that decentralized at that point?

The possession of non-mining nodes doesn't contribute to the decentralization of bitcoin's consensus mechanism, which is SOLELY decided by miners and doesn't need Joe's full node in his basement.  So whether Joe has invested in a node in his basement or not, the ONLY THING Joe's node can do, is to copy the sole chain on which miners came to consensus - whatever that chain is, according to whatever protocol - or NOT copy that chain, at which point his full node stopped, and has the same effect as being removed or switched off, which will affect nobody.

But by the time that bitcoin NEEDS 1 GB blocks, if ever, most Joe's will be prefectly capable of affording such a node in their basement, even though it doesn't serve much of a purpose (it does serve some privacy purpose to Joe but that's about it).

At this point in time, only about 20 entities make all the consensus decisions in bitcoin ; half of them by only 5 entities (which may even be related).  That's the true state of "decentralisation" of bitcoin.  All the people that can only copy those data and serve as a proxy for it are not part of the decision power, and hence are not part of the decentralisation of the consensus.

Imho it was designed to be deflationary. Just think: 21M cap from start, the real chance that some money will be lost (pk lost, tx sent to wrong address or simply burned..), this doesn't look like a mistake.
Since Bitcoin was an anti-banking system, I think that it was designed to be deflationary as opposite to the inflationary every day fiat.
Dogecoin was designed to be inflationary and the markets were not happy about that...


The fees were huge because of the spam attacks. This was a mistake caused by Bitcoin development falling a bit behind (imho), although "development" is not the best word here, getting the development live would be more correct.
Normally only the careless faucet-dependent newbies (or similar) get to pay too big fees. You know, tons of small inputs.


Money attracts speculators, that's caused by it's success, not by the design.
Even poorly designed (or scammy) ICOs attract speculators, so Bitcoin becoming a speculative asset is .. normal and expected.

Edit:

Did it occur to you that maybe Core has one agenda and Gavin has another?
It makes no difference between them. LN may give Bitcoin the chance to become coffee money. Unlimited is just another dead end.

It is a mistake to think that this will become a CURRENCY.  

The mistake is a misunderstanding of what sound money doctrine was about, and the mistake is also to think that the slight inflation in fiat currency is a problem (essentially, it is based upon a misunderstood pile of conspiracy theories).

The sound money doctrine (by the Austrian school) considered that it is such a bad idea to have a CENTRAL PLANNER decide arbitrarily upon the printing of money under POLICITAL INFLUENCE, that it is better to have a constant amount of money that "is in circulation since ever".  What was considered bad by Austrians, is SEIGNIORAGE.  If there's no way to print money, there will not be seigniorage.

This is why Austrians liked gold, because gold is already in circulation for millennia.  Nobody is going to "start putting gold in circulation".  It IS already in circulation and it WAS already highly valuable.  At no point, Austrians considered huge value appreciation of gold beyond the economic growth, because, exactly, gold was already valuable and widely distributed.

However, bitcoin is new, so there WAS huge seigniorage (those making the first bitcoins, didn't have to burn as much proof of work as people now, so they got essentially printed bitcoin "for free").  This seigniorage of the initial bitcoin printing with few PoW costs screwed entirely the MOTIVATION of sound money doctrine.  Bitcoin was also new to the world, so it didn't have value, and it was in very limited circulation.  

All this made bitcoin totally different from gold's economic situation, and made that the REASONS for the sound money doctrine were of no value in bitcoin.

So bitcoin inherited all the PROBLEMS of sound money doctrine (namely the lack of value control) while it didn't have any of the reasons why sound money doctrine was preferred by the Austrians (no seigniorage, already high value, already very old and in circulation, very well known, and largely used: gold).

Nash explains us what the ideal CURRENCY is.  Gold from sound money doctrine can only be a remote approximation under the original conditions of the sound money doctrine, but bitcoin's application of sound money doctrine with huge seigniorage, low initial value and growing user base is EXTREMELY REMOTE from Nash's ideal money.  In fact, it is difficult to imagine a WORSE form of currency.

A good currency has constant, or predictably slightly evolving, economic value.  Proof of work for coin creation at CONSTANT ECONOMIC COST would have been a very good approximation to Nash's ideal money.  If the first bitcoin mined would have COSTED AS MUCH in PoW as a bitcoin mined today, we would have had:

- constant value of bitcoin (namely close to the constant cost of mining it with PoW)
- no seigniorage (you waste all of it on PoW)
- coin emission on par with adoption
- no speculation

It would have been a very good currency.

Bitcoin, in true sound money vision, could only become a kind of a currency after all of it was in circulation for such a long time, that all of its seigniorage was dissipated economically for a long time, and that it had been in wide use like gold since a long time.  In other words, 500 years from now or so.

Running a full node allows you to decide what is bitcoin. If you don't own a full node, you can't decide can bitcoin is, the corporation running the full node which you are relying upon is deciding for you.

Sorry, there's no way around this. Optimal usage of bitcoin requires running a full node, otherwise you are someone else's cuck.

Nope.  If you run a full node, you can FIND OUT whether what is in the block chain, is "bitcoin as you think you knew it".  But that doesn't change the fact that bitcoin "out there" is what it is (that is, what the miners have been building).  As there is no OTHER bitcoin around, your full node will simply INFORM you whether the only bitcoin out there is what you thought it was (it will update), or whether the only bitcoin out there doesn't correspond to what you thought it was (it will stop).

That's about it. 

That's about as useful to use a "full telescope" to see whether the moon is still what you thought it was.  If the moon is not what you thought it was, your "full telescope" will inform you, but that won't change anything to the only moon out there.

You have no *power* by running a full node.  You only have one extra bit of information: "the only bitcoin out there corresponds to what the rule set in my full node thinks it should be".

In as much as you care about that information, you may invest in a full node to obtain that information ; in the same way that you may want to invest in a 'full telescope' to inspect the "validity of the moon".  The bit may inform you about how to invest.  But that's it.  The telescope may inform you whether to invest in moon-related assets or not.  But that's it.

You are not "at the mercy of a company" if you use its full node, because you can always check that the full node has the right header chain (you ask for it, and it can't fake it - it would need proof of work for that).  And you can check all the transactions you are interested in (your coins and payments).  That's what a SPV wallet does.  They cannot lie to you about nor the header chain, nor your transactions (Merkle tree path).   There's no way to "serve false data" to a SPV wallet.

The Block size becomes important when the capacity {tx per second} cannot handle the load. I like the direction that scaling is going with the

lightning network and hope this will be well accepted in the future. The test simulations that were done has shown that the network will be able

to handle the load and that is what is important.  ;D

Increasing the block size for now is beneficial (I do not say that it is needed or important at any circumstances) in order to process more transactions per block and have a lower fees for every transactions. The transaction fees nowadays are crazy high that sending small amount is never a wise decision. Maybe increasing to 1 GB block is not important but maybe increasing to 2 MB is not that harmful?

2mb block size for a single transaction may sound normal but imagine 20000 transactions in a single block and that's how it works. bitcoin miners are given a network block which contains around 20000 transactions each of them containing all their previous transaction trees. so developers are taking that old transaction details which are taking huge memory and keep it in a warehouse which they call a segwet wallet and add a pointer to the original transaction.

There are essentially 3 approaches:

1) put in a hard limit (like in bitcoin), and do a hard fork every so many years.  We see that that doesn't work, and is not a reliable system.  It goes against the very idea of a decentralized crypto currency where people "know the rules" (essentially immutability). 

2) put in an *automatic* algorithm that determines fees and/or dynamic block size as a function of recent past chain usage --> this is very gameable if there is no tail emission.  Essentially, you try to make a deterministic price algorithm for a market.

3) don't put in any limit in the protocol itself, and let the miners themselves pick the block sizes they want to use themselves, and they want to accept --> this is game-theoretically usually divergent towards infinitely large blocks if the miners are decentralized and truly competing, or towards very small blocks if they can cartelize.

You can understand these terms if you consider "block space" as equivalent to "number of coins", and "fees" as "market price of a coin".  If you consider block room a scarce quantity, and the market price of that scarce quantity, the fee, then these 3 paths are the analogy of:

1) decide by hard forks how many coins are in circulation.  Here it is more obvious why that's problematic !

2) put an automatic coin emission system in place that will emit coins as a function of past coin usage.

3) let users decide how many coins they create.

Obviously, 1 and 3 are not going to work.  Our only hope is to find an algorithm like in 2. 
But the problem is that without tail emission, which would give a "reference point of block reward" that would be able to satisfy many miners, if the full miner rewards are determined by a very volatile fee market, games can be played by big miners, like spamming, that would game the algorithm.  The principal problem is that the "cost of spamming" goes into the pocket of the miners.  So while non-miners would be refrained from spamming because of the cost of it, for miners, this cost is non-existent because they are also on the receiving side of this.  As miners also decide what goes on the block, they could make the algorithm think that there's not much activity by NOT including many transactions into the block chain, having the algorithm reduce significantly the block size, and creating artificial scarcity.  By spamming with low fees, they could make the algorithm think that "the fees are too low" if ever there's such a part in it, and have the algorithm decrease the block size to increase fees.

As miners are the entities deciding WHAT goes into the blocks (more or less real user transactions, more or less spam transactions), they entirely determine the INPUT to any dynamic algorithm, and hence, they determine essentially, knowing the algorithm, what will be the block size and hence the fees, which they can optimize to whatever the market will bear.

It is only if miners have also a FIXED income (tail emission) that they will refrain from playing these games, which will affect market value in the long term, and will try to serve the coin for best market value (which would come down to having the system work optimally).  If they ENTIRELY depend on the fees where they have a lever arm, it is obvious that miners will chose, say, 10 times higher fees, even if this crashes the market price by, say, a factor of 5: they won a factor of 2 in real income, but the system is highly under performing.



That's the case with tail emission.  But if fees are dominant, they will optimize the PRODUCT of fees and market price, which may very well contain a high fee factor and a low market price.

That's essentially the crux of it.

To follow up on this:

We can now see the fundamental difficulties in the economical model of bitcoin.

1) the choice of "proof of work" as sybil-avoiding decentralizing consensus voting failed because:
1a) Proof of work was meant to be costly to pretend to be many (because, exactly, it proved waste), so the idea was that people would be willing to "waste one PC equivalent" but not much more, and hence we would have truly decentralized consensus voting BUT
1b) this proof of work was COMPENSATED with coin creation and fees, which set off the "punishment for sybilling" and actually made it LUCRATIVE to "sybil", which is nothing else but "economies of scale in mining". 

==> COMPENSATED "proof of work" with coin creation/fees has the OPPOSITE effect than the "punishment for sybilling": sybilling allows you, on the contrary, to profit from economies of scale, and hence, compensated proof of work works towards centralization, instead of decentralization.

1c) however, proof of work being the (bad) cryptographic security of the block chain, one NEEDS a lot of proof of work, which nobody honest is going to be willing to provide "out of his pocket" for the well-being of the community, while a motivated attacker will exactly be motivated.  So proof of work that secures the past consensus (block chain history immutability) NEEDS to be (heavily) rewarded.

==> proof of work cannot work as a consensus decision mechanism without centralizing the entire system.

(this is why I'm in favour of NON REWARDED proof of stake, which gives very strong cryptographic protection, and can be provided by all users at very low cost "out of their pockets").

2) the sound money doctrine of bitcoin doesn't allow proof of work to be rewarded sufficiently in the long run by coin creation, and hence needs fees, which we've outlined, will be gamed by the miners in order to obtain the maximum fee extraction the market can bear, which has nothing to do with the optimal working point of the system (on the contrary, it is maximal extortion of the system, like the maximum of the Laffer curve for taxes).  Miners will create an artificial scarcity of transactions to obtain maximum gain.

In voluntary proof of stake with no fees or no rewards, it are the users themselves that will pick the RIGHT block size, that is, where true resource cost (network, storage, computing) starts to become prohibitive for normal users, and will limit blocks that way, so that the network will not be overloaded.  Unrewarded PoS users have all interest that their system works optimally.  There are no games to be played, because there's nothing to win from hindering the system if you have a big stake.

The fundamental point is that from the moment there are rewards, there are optimal gaming strategies to be played to win the maximum of these rewards, which usually goes against the original idea of why a reward was given in the first place.

What goes wrong in bitcoin's economic model is hence:

1) the use of proof of work for consensus
2) the (necessary) linking of proof of work with rewards
3) the sound money doctrine that makes coin creation dry up.

People would say that these ideas were in fact the essence of bitcoin.

Absolutely correct, I agree with you. It's crazy when he says it does not matter. I think he is a fool, so silly.

Yeah it doesn't matter how large a truck is but how much can you stuff in it.
I might be wrong assuming this but I have the impression that no matter what you do a 7axle will be able to carry more popcorn than a van.

So no matter how you try to optimize the transaction size in the end the result swill be the same.
The 2mb will be able to carry twice as the 1mb.

Block size is also important for increasing transactions, which are stored in blocks. Speed of the bitcoin transactions will be based on the number blocks and block size.