...

[Peter R]

No one has real data to show that a higher block limit = more fees overall for miners, it is simply a misunderstanding of how transaction fees work in real life.

Here is real data that shows that over the last five years, higher block sizes = more fees overall for miners.  

Block size has not been changed over the last 5 years, this is what I mean by people fundamentally misunderstand the issue…

What are you talking about?  Block size has unquestionably changed (increased) over the last 5 years.  The increase in the block size--such that it's now approaching the anti-spam limit--is what has precipitated this debate. 

[brg444]

No one has real data to show that a higher block limit = more fees overall for miners, it is simply a misunderstanding of how transaction fees work in real life.

Here is real data that shows that over the last five years, higher block sizes = more fees overall for miners.  

Block size has not been changed over the last 5 years, this is what I mean by people fundamentally misunderstand the issue…

What are you talking about?  Block size has unquestionably changed (increased) over the last 5 years.  The increase in the block size--such that it's now approaching the anti-spam limit--is what has precipitated this debate. 

Peter your chart is misguiding obviously as it shows an increase in transactions, not block size, all happening under the same limit.

The increase in fees paid is a result of more transactions, not bigger blocks.

[uxgpf]

The increase in fees paid is a result of more transactions, not bigger blocks.

You do know that blocks are made of transactions? So generally, more transactions means exactly that, bigger blocks.

[adamstgBit]

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/43331625/feemarket.pdf

[adamstgBit]

now that #1 argument is deemed invalid lets talk about #2

2) Currently average block size is less than 0.4 mb now that the stress test bullshit is over. Gonna be a long time until we even hit the 1 mb limit.

we are hitting the 1MB limit on the majority of block right now.

the proof: https://blockchain.info/ look at the block size on the last 6 blocks mined

the average block size seems low because sometimes a miner puts out a block with like 10KB and pools seem to be limiting themselves to 900ish KB not 1024KB

[jonald_fyookball]

now that #1 argument is deemed invalid lets talk about #2

2) Currently average block size is less than 0.4 mb now that the stress test bullshit is over. Gonna be a long time until we even hit the 1 mb limit.

we are hitting the 1MB limit on the majority of block right now.

the proof: https://blockchain.info/ look at the block size on the last 6 blocks mined

the average block size seems low because sometimes a miner puts out a block with like 10KB and pools seem to be limiting themselves to 900ish KB not 1024KB

blocks have about doubled in last twelve months.  could double again in twelve months so if that's "a long time" then he's right,  but it's not, and he isn't.

[ebliever]

Peter your chart is misguiding obviously as it shows an increase in transactions, not block size, all happening under the same limit.

The increase in fees paid is a result of more transactions, not bigger blocks.

And how do you get more transactions without fitting them into larger blocks? There is a straightforward linkage between the two in the long run.

[Mickeyb]

now that #1 argument is deemed invalid lets talk about #2

2) Currently average block size is less than 0.4 mb now that the stress test bullshit is over. Gonna be a long time until we even hit the 1 mb limit.

we are hitting the 1MB limit on the majority of block right now.

the proof: https://blockchain.info/ look at the block size on the last 6 blocks mined

the average block size seems low because sometimes a miner puts out a block with like 10KB and pools seem to be limiting themselves to 900ish KB not 1024KB

blocks have about doubled in last twelve months.  could double again in twelve months so if that's "a long time" then he's right,  but it's not, and he isn't.

Or they can double in the next 3 months if we get some crazy influx of new users. Let's say because of some amazing news, or some government that would recognize us, or just 10 million Chinese that would see a Bitcoin documentary and get interested.

The thing is that future is unpredictable and we never know when and why this might happen. And what we do then if network would get crippled?

[DooMAD]

No one has real data to show that a higher block limit = more fees overall for miners, it is simply a misunderstanding of how transaction fees work in real life.

Here is real data that shows that over the last five years, higher block sizes = more fees overall for miners.  

Block size has not been changed over the last 5 years, this is what I mean by people fundamentally misunderstand the issue…

What are you talking about?  Block size has unquestionably changed (increased) over the last 5 years.  The increase in the block size--such that it's now approaching the anti-spam limit--is what has precipitated this debate. 

Peter your chart is misguiding obviously as it shows an increase in transactions, not block size, all happening under the same limit.

The increase in fees paid is a result of more transactions, not bigger blocks.

There's nothing "misguiding" about that chart.  It clearly demonstrates that more transactions equals more fees collected.  That's why we should alter the blocksize limit to allow more transactions.  If we don't raise the cap, the only way for revenues to continue to rise is to raise the fee itself.  But if that gets prohibitively expensive for the average user, they'll simply transact on another chain and miners will get less revenue than they would with a larger blocksize limit.  Forcing an unnatural fee market will not help scalability and will deter new users.  A cautious, responsible and preferably (IMO) flexible increase that keeps centralisation to an absolute minimum is the best way forward.  The only people still denying that are the ones who envision Bitcoin as an exclusive little club for the wealthy and frankly I can't wait to leave all those people behind.  

[marky89]

No one has real data to show that a higher block limit = more fees overall for miners, it is simply a misunderstanding of how transaction fees work in real life.

Here is real data that shows that over the last five years, higher block sizes = more fees overall for miners.  

Block size has not been changed over the last 5 years, this is what I mean by people fundamentally misunderstand the issue…

What are you talking about?  Block size has unquestionably changed (increased) over the last 5 years.  The increase in the block size--such that it's now approaching the anti-spam limit--is what has precipitated this debate. 

Peter your chart is misguiding obviously as it shows an increase in transactions, not block size, all happening under the same limit.

The increase in fees paid is a result of more transactions, not bigger blocks.

There's nothing "misguiding" about that chart.  It clearly demonstrates that more transactions equals more fees collected.  That's why we should alter the blocksize limit to allow more transactions.  If we don't raise the cap, the only way for revenues to continue to rise is to raise the fee itself.  But if that gets prohibitively expensive for the average user, they'll simply transact on another chain and miners will get less revenue than they would with a larger blocksize limit.  Forcing an unnatural fee market will not help scalability and will deter new users.  A cautious, responsible and preferably (IMO) flexible increase that keeps centralisation to an absolute minimum is the best way forward.  The only people still denying that are the ones who envision Bitcoin as an exclusive little club for the wealthy and frankly I can't wait to leave all those people behind.  

Of course more transactions = more fees collected. This does not logically entail anything that you are saying. Mere capacity is not the only concern. And reducing the complexity of a fee market to being "unnatural" and "will not help scalability," or assuming that it is necessarily a deterrent to adoption -- I don't buy it. I'm not convinced by your sectarian perspective, either.

[brg444]

No one has real data to show that a higher block limit = more fees overall for miners, it is simply a misunderstanding of how transaction fees work in real life.

Here is real data that shows that over the last five years, higher block sizes = more fees overall for miners.  

Block size has not been changed over the last 5 years, this is what I mean by people fundamentally misunderstand the issue…

What are you talking about?  Block size has unquestionably changed (increased) over the last 5 years.  The increase in the block size--such that it's now approaching the anti-spam limit--is what has precipitated this debate.  

Peter your chart is misguiding obviously as it shows an increase in transactions, not block size, all happening under the same limit.

The increase in fees paid is a result of more transactions, not bigger blocks.

There's nothing "misguiding" about that chart.  It clearly demonstrates that more transactions equals more fees collected.  That's why we should alter the blocksize limit to allow more transactions.  If we don't raise the cap, the only way for revenues to continue to rise is to raise the fee itself.  But if that gets prohibitively expensive for the average user, they'll simply transact on another chain and miners will get less revenue than they would with a larger blocksize limit.  Forcing an unnatural fee market will not help scalability and will deter new users.  A cautious, responsible and preferably (IMO) flexible increase that keeps centralisation to an absolute minimum is the best way forward.  The only people still denying that are the ones who envision Bitcoin as an exclusive little club for the wealthy and frankly I can't wait to leave all those people behind.  

The wealthy will continue to rule Bitcoin and there is no amount of "new users" tears that will change this.

The average user' seat in the block, if he chooses not to claim it, will be taken by anyone willing to pay the cost. It is quite simple: the capital demand for censorship-resistance, at whatever price, is above and beyond any demand for cheap transactions.

Simply said: the movement of capital around the world is not handicapped by cost but by political friction.

The world will not be made wealthier from cheaper transactions but from breaking the shackles of governments power over money.

Once you can understand this aspect of the economy maybe you will come to peace with reality.

[DooMAD]

No one has real data to show that a higher block limit = more fees overall for miners, it is simply a misunderstanding of how transaction fees work in real life.

Here is real data that shows that over the last five years, higher block sizes = more fees overall for miners.  

Block size has not been changed over the last 5 years, this is what I mean by people fundamentally misunderstand the issue…

What are you talking about?  Block size has unquestionably changed (increased) over the last 5 years.  The increase in the block size--such that it's now approaching the anti-spam limit--is what has precipitated this debate.  

Peter your chart is misguiding obviously as it shows an increase in transactions, not block size, all happening under the same limit.

The increase in fees paid is a result of more transactions, not bigger blocks.

There's nothing "misguiding" about that chart.  It clearly demonstrates that more transactions equals more fees collected.  That's why we should alter the blocksize limit to allow more transactions.  If we don't raise the cap, the only way for revenues to continue to rise is to raise the fee itself.  But if that gets prohibitively expensive for the average user, they'll simply transact on another chain and miners will get less revenue than they would with a larger blocksize limit.  Forcing an unnatural fee market will not help scalability and will deter new users.  A cautious, responsible and preferably (IMO) flexible increase that keeps centralisation to an absolute minimum is the best way forward.  The only people still denying that are the ones who envision Bitcoin as an exclusive little club for the wealthy and frankly I can't wait to leave all those people behind.  

Mere capacity is not the only concern. And reducing the complexity of a fee market to being "unnatural" and "will not help scalability," or assuming that it is necessarily a deterrent to adoption -- I don't buy it. I'm not convinced by your sectarian perspective, either.

Where did I say it was the "only" concern?  I clearly said: "A cautious, responsible and preferably (IMO) flexible increase that keeps centralisation to an absolute minimum".  I've taken on board the considerations of maintaining a sufficiently decentralised system.  I recognise the importance of that, but there is still a balance to be struck against capacity.  I've made -numerous- attempts to be reasonable and discuss solutions that would strike a balance that doesn't result in any reckless increases in blocksize, but it's like banging my head against a wall because certain people won't budge.  They genuinely believe that capacity isn't an issue and the only concern is centralisation.  I'm tired of it.  So if I'm displaying a "sectarian perspective", that's where it's come from.  Too many MP fanboys spouting too much MP guff.

And to further clarify, I'm not ruling out fee markets altogether, I just don't think we should hit a solid wall and ramp the fees up too quickly as a result.  Yet another reason why I've been pushing for a dynamic limit like BIP106 (but with alterations to the doubling/halving bit as that seems excessive).  Something like this seems perfectly reasonable, or perhaps my (even more conservative) adjustment described here. 

[brg444]

No one has real data to show that a higher block limit = more fees overall for miners, it is simply a misunderstanding of how transaction fees work in real life.

Here is real data that shows that over the last five years, higher block sizes = more fees overall for miners.  

Block size has not been changed over the last 5 years, this is what I mean by people fundamentally misunderstand the issue…

What are you talking about?  Block size has unquestionably changed (increased) over the last 5 years.  The increase in the block size--such that it's now approaching the anti-spam limit--is what has precipitated this debate.  

Peter your chart is misguiding obviously as it shows an increase in transactions, not block size, all happening under the same limit.

The increase in fees paid is a result of more transactions, not bigger blocks.

There's nothing "misguiding" about that chart.  It clearly demonstrates that more transactions equals more fees collected.  That's why we should alter the blocksize limit to allow more transactions.  If we don't raise the cap, the only way for revenues to continue to rise is to raise the fee itself.  But if that gets prohibitively expensive for the average user, they'll simply transact on another chain and miners will get less revenue than they would with a larger blocksize limit.  Forcing an unnatural fee market will not help scalability and will deter new users.  A cautious, responsible and preferably (IMO) flexible increase that keeps centralisation to an absolute minimum is the best way forward.  The only people still denying that are the ones who envision Bitcoin as an exclusive little club for the wealthy and frankly I can't wait to leave all those people behind.  

Mere capacity is not the only concern. And reducing the complexity of a fee market to being "unnatural" and "will not help scalability," or assuming that it is necessarily a deterrent to adoption -- I don't buy it. I'm not convinced by your sectarian perspective, either.

Where did I say it was the "only" concern?  I clearly said: "A cautious, responsible and preferably (IMO) flexible increase that keeps centralisation to an absolute minimum".  I've taken on board the considerations of maintaining a sufficiently decentralised system.  I recognise the importance of that, but there is still a balance to be struck against capacity.  I've made -numerous- attempts to be reasonable and discuss solutions that would strike a balance that doesn't result in any reckless increases in blocksize, but it's like banging my head against a wall because certain people won't budge.  They genuinely believe that capacity isn't an issue and the only concern is centralisation.  I'm tired of it.  So if I'm displaying a "sectarian perspective", that's where it's come from.  Too many MP fanboys spouting too much MP guff.

And to further clarify, I'm not ruling out fee markets altogether, I just don't think we should hit a solid wall and ramp the fees up too quickly as a result.  Yet another reason why I've been pushing for a dynamic limit like BIP106 (but with alterations to the doubling/halving bit as that seems excessive).  Something like this seems perfectly reasonable, or perhaps my (even more conservative) adjustment described here.  

How about we eliminate centralization risks forever and still serve your demand for capacity?

https://www.mail-archive.com/bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net/msg07937.html

[adamstgBit]

No one has real data to show that a higher block limit = more fees overall for miners, it is simply a misunderstanding of how transaction fees work in real life.

Here is real data that shows that over the last five years, higher block sizes = more fees overall for miners.  

Block size has not been changed over the last 5 years, this is what I mean by people fundamentally misunderstand the issue…

What are you talking about?  Block size has unquestionably changed (increased) over the last 5 years.  The increase in the block size--such that it's now approaching the anti-spam limit--is what has precipitated this debate.  

Peter your chart is misguiding obviously as it shows an increase in transactions, not block size, all happening under the same limit.

The increase in fees paid is a result of more transactions, not bigger blocks.

There's nothing "misguiding" about that chart.  It clearly demonstrates that more transactions equals more fees collected.  That's why we should alter the blocksize limit to allow more transactions.  If we don't raise the cap, the only way for revenues to continue to rise is to raise the fee itself.  But if that gets prohibitively expensive for the average user, they'll simply transact on another chain and miners will get less revenue than they would with a larger blocksize limit.  Forcing an unnatural fee market will not help scalability and will deter new users.  A cautious, responsible and preferably (IMO) flexible increase that keeps centralisation to an absolute minimum is the best way forward.  The only people still denying that are the ones who envision Bitcoin as an exclusive little club for the wealthy and frankly I can't wait to leave all those people behind.  

Mere capacity is not the only concern. And reducing the complexity of a fee market to being "unnatural" and "will not help scalability," or assuming that it is necessarily a deterrent to adoption -- I don't buy it. I'm not convinced by your sectarian perspective, either.

Where did I say it was the "only" concern?  I clearly said: "A cautious, responsible and preferably (IMO) flexible increase that keeps centralisation to an absolute minimum".  I've taken on board the considerations of maintaining a sufficiently decentralised system.  I recognise the importance of that, but there is still a balance to be struck against capacity.  I've made -numerous- attempts to be reasonable and discuss solutions that would strike a balance that doesn't result in any reckless increases in blocksize, but it's like banging my head against a wall because certain people won't budge.  They genuinely believe that capacity isn't an issue and the only concern is centralisation.  I'm tired of it.  So if I'm displaying a "sectarian perspective", that's where it's come from.  Too many MP fanboys spouting too much MP guff.

And to further clarify, I'm not ruling out fee markets altogether, I just don't think we should hit a solid wall and ramp the fees up too quickly as a result.  Yet another reason why I've been pushing for a dynamic limit like BIP106 (but with alterations to the doubling/halving bit as that seems excessive).

+1
there are a lot more poeple that think like you do then you realize, i think what you say is more or less what the majority think. the key is finding a good balance for capacity Vs centralisation. there is simply a very loud minority unwilling to budge from there senseless position, at this point i'm calling them trolls. Arguing that 1MB is the absolute limit before block size starts to increase centralisation is just plain incorrect.

[DooMAD]

Block size has not been changed over the last 5 years, this is what I mean by people fundamentally misunderstand the issue.

Maybe it's you who is totally misunderstanding the issue or just trolling. (I'm beginning to think of latter)

Block size has changed as you can see from the graph. The block size limit hasn't changed. So far the gap between actual block size and the limit has been so large that it has had no effect on economy whatsoever. (aside from recent "stress test".)

Block size limit has never been increased, the fundamental misunderstanding of the data continues...

Do you have issues with reading comprehension, turtlehurricane?  Try slowly reading it again one more time:

Block size has changed as you can see from the graph. The block size limit hasn't changed.

That's what uxgpf said.  The LIMIT has not changed.  But the size of individual blocks have been steadily increasing with more transactions taking place.  As the number of transactions increase, the total amount generated in fees continues to increase with them.  -If- the number of transactions can no longer increase because blocks have reached the 1MB limit, the only way the total amount generated in fees can increase is if fees on individual transactions go up (and there's no guarantee this would generate the same income as simply allowing more transactions through).  It's really not that complicated.  We shouldn't prevent a natural increase in transactions (unless it becomes excessive and threatens decentralisation) because the miners receive greater rewards from supporting more transactions.

[TransaDox]

There is no "spam" there are no "junk" transactions. There are only "unprofitable" transactions. The more I look at all these "issues", the more it seems that miners are the problem and we need to find another alternative to secure the block chain instead of relying on naked greed.

[adamstgBit]

[marky89]

There is no "spam" there are no "junk" transactions. There are only "unprofitable" transactions. The more I look at all these "issues", the more it seems that miners are the problem and we need to find another alternative to secure the block chain instead of relying on naked greed.

Sounds like you don't really want a proof-of-work system at all! That's cool, and lots of altcoins have explored alternative incentive regimes. However, this would fundamentally change bitcoin and is unlikely to be supported by those who support the principles it was built upon.

There is indeed spam -- for instance, what is the use of pushing outputs that require significantly more fees than the output is worth in order to re-spend them? It's pure spam.

[marky89]

adamstgBit: People are redeeming outputs from the Coinwallet dust keys:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1175321.msg12373932#msg12373932

Each output = ~75,000 bytes.

I wonder if they will actually release hundreds more keys in the coming days. Hilarity may just ensue.

[adamstgBit]

adamstgBit: People are redeeming outputs from the Coinwallet dust keys:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1175321.msg12373932#msg12373932

Each output = ~75,000 bytes.

I wonder if they will actually release hundreds more keys in the coming days. Hilarity may just ensue.

Each output = ~75,000 bytes.

that must mean a nice fee for the miners?