block limit, high fees Vs centralization.

[adamstgBit]

if we keep the 1MB limit fees go up but mining is easy even with a really crappy internet connection "more decentralized higher fee"
if we up the limit to 32MB fees remain unaffected (very low) but you need a reasonable internet connection to mine "more centralized lower fee"

what if we could use the block limit to make sure fees are always ~5cent

if the avg fee is <4 cents lower the the limit
if the avg fee is >6 cents up the limit

simple enough.

this way block limit will increase with demand and is sure to be as low as it can be to allow for free TX being processed but free TX will always take alot of time because most blocks are filled with TX that have a fee, and that's the reason poeple pay fee to make sure they get confirmed ASAP.

the balance between decentralized and low fees is always such that free TX are slow but possible
 
cool no?

[DannyHamilton]

if we keep the 1MB limit fees go up but mining is easy even with a really crappy internet connection "more decentralized higher fee"
if we up the limit to 32MB fees remain unaffected (very low) but you need a reasonable internet connection to mine "more centralized lower fee"

what if we could use the block limit to make sure fees are always ~5cent

if the avg fee is <4 cents lower the the limit
if the avg fee is >6 cents up the limit

simple enough.

this way block limit will increase with demand and is sure to be as low as it can be to allow for free TX being processed but free TX will always take alot of time because most blocks are filled with TX that have a fee, and that's the reason poeple pay fee to make sure they get confirmed ASAP.

the balance between decentralized and low fees is always such that free TX are slow but possible
 
cool no?

Wouldn't that require a centralized service to determine how to calculate the current exchange rate?

[unamis76]

if we keep the 1MB limit fees go up but mining is easy even with a really crappy internet connection "more decentralized higher fee"
if we up the limit to 32MB fees remain unaffected (very low) but you need a reasonable internet connection to mine "more centralized lower fee"

what if we could use the block limit to make sure fees are always ~5cent

if the avg fee is <4 cents lower the the limit
if the avg fee is >6 cents up the limit

simple enough.

this way block limit will increase with demand and is sure to be as low as it can be to allow for free TX being processed but free TX will always take alot of time because most blocks are filled with TX that have a fee, and that's the reason poeple pay fee to make sure they get confirmed ASAP.

the balance between decentralized and low fees is always such that free TX are slow but possible
 
cool no?

Wouldn't that require a centralized service to determine how to calculate the current exchange rate?

I think adamstgBit was referring figuratively to these "cents". The calculation could be tied to an amount in Bitcoin, based on the default fee settings. That being said, this doesn't seem like a bad idea at all...

[DannyHamilton]

based on the default fee settings. That being said, this doesn't seem like a bad idea at all...

So, a centralized source would declare a "default fee setting", and any time that source decided to change the default fee setting, there would be a new hard fork released that would change the blocksize calculation?

[adamstgBit]

based on the default fee settings. That being said, this doesn't seem like a bad idea at all...

So, a centralized source would declare a "default fee setting", and any time that source decided to change the default fee setting, there would be a new hard fork released that would change the blocksize calculation?

how about miners determine the fee by voting with the coinbase code thing!

they are already in control as to what fee they require to include your TX, so make them vote and take the mean or avg or wtv of the votes, and use that as the "target fee" and have the block size calculation revolve around that.

Booya we solved it, call the devs!   lmao

[brg444]

Might as well post this here...

determining the block size by targeting a tx fee limit is the most fucktarded idea I've come accross with so far.

[unamis76]

based on the default fee settings. That being said, this doesn't seem like a bad idea at all...

So, a centralized source would declare a "default fee setting", and any time that source decided to change the default fee setting, there would be a new hard fork released that would change the blocksize calculation?

No. No need for a centralized source to have a default fee setting, Bitcoin Core has it. From there, the fee could be calculated as per OP's suggestion using a method similar to the fee estimation that already exists on the reference client. Or is this impossible to implement?

how about miners determine the fee by voting with the coinbase code thing!

they are already in control as to what fee they require to include your TX, so make them vote and take the mean or avg or wtv of the votes, and use that as the "target fee" and have the block size calculation revolve around that.

Booya we solved it, call the devs!   lmao

That could work, but it would raise again the discussion about "miners already have too much control". And there would be a conflict of interests, I think, as miners profit on bigger fees...

Might as well post this here...

determining the block size by targeting a tx fee limit is the most fucktarded idea I've come accross with so far.

The future of fees is uncertain, and the possibility of having them raise quite a bit causes discussions on this matter... I'd classify ideas like this as extreme, on the limit. Only the future will tell us if these are "fucktarded" ideas

[brg444]

based on the default fee settings. That being said, this doesn't seem like a bad idea at all...

So, a centralized source would declare a "default fee setting", and any time that source decided to change the default fee setting, there would be a new hard fork released that would change the blocksize calculation?

No. No need for a centralized source to have a default fee setting, Bitcoin Core has it. From there, the fee could be calculated as per OP's suggestion using a method similar to the fee estimation that already exists on the reference client. Or is this impossible to implement?

how about miners determine the fee by voting with the coinbase code thing!

they are already in control as to what fee they require to include your TX, so make them vote and take the mean or avg or wtv of the votes, and use that as the "target fee" and have the block size calculation revolve around that.

Booya we solved it, call the devs!   lmao

That could work, but it would raise again the discussion about "miners already have too much control". And there would be a conflict of interests, I think, as miners profit on bigger fees...

Might as well post this here...

determining the block size by targeting a tx fee limit is the most fucktarded idea I've come accross with so far.

The future of fees is uncertain, and the possibility of having them raise quite a bit causes discussions on this matter... I'd classify ideas like this as extreme, on the limit. Only the future will tell us if these are "fucktarded" ideas

No. I will not sugarcoat these ideas because they are dangerous.

Making decisions on the security of a billion $ network based on targeting a certain transaction fee is the definition of "fucktarded"

[adamstgBit]

Might as well post this here...

determining the block size by targeting a tx fee limit is the most fucktarded idea I've come accross with so far.

not sure how you can be into bitcoin, and at the same time be as closed minded as you are.

[adamstgBit]

No. I will not sugarcoat these ideas because they are dangerous.

Making decisions on the security of a billion $ network based on targeting a certain transaction fee is the definition of "fucktarded"

BIP100 is less fucktardalishous?

maybe so, wtv its just a though, i still think its cool to allow free TX however slow, and have blocksize grow such that this slow free TX is always possible. thank you for your input, as fucktarded as it is.

[DannyHamilton]

No. No need for a centralized source to have a default fee setting, Bitcoin Core has it.

Some (most) copies of Bitcoin Core have it.  The reason they have it is because a centralized source put it there.

Fortuantely, right now, it's just a "default fee" and not a "required fee" or "enforced fee".  Therefore, anyone can change their own software to pay more or less if they want to.

[brg444]

No. I will not sugarcoat these ideas because they are dangerous.

Making decisions on the security of a billion $ network based on targeting a certain transaction fee is the definition of "fucktarded"

BIP100 is less fucktardalishous?

No, I'm increasingly getting the sense that BIP100 is equally broken. Having miners decide on the blocksize makes no sense from a game-theory point of view. The block size is there to put a check on their ambition.

[adamstgBit]

No. I will not sugarcoat these ideas because they are dangerous.

Making decisions on the security of a billion $ network based on targeting a certain transaction fee is the definition of "fucktarded"

BIP100 is less fucktardalishous?

No, I'm increasingly getting the sense that BIP100 is equally broken. Having miners decide on the blocksize makes no sense from a game-theory point of view. The block size is there to put a check on their ambition.

i agree BIP100 and this idea are on about the same level of crazy.

[brg444]

No. I will not sugarcoat these ideas because they are dangerous.

Making decisions on the security of a billion $ network based on targeting a certain transaction fee is the definition of "fucktarded"

BIP100 is less fucktardalishous?

No, I'm increasingly getting the sense that BIP100 is equally broken. Having miners decide on the blocksize makes no sense from a game-theory point of view. The block size is there to put a check on their ambition.

i agree BIP100 and this idea are on about the same level of crazy.

The people running nodes have the right to claim decision over the block size as they are the ones to whom the costs are externalized.

[adamstgBit]

No. I will not sugarcoat these ideas because they are dangerous.

Making decisions on the security of a billion $ network based on targeting a certain transaction fee is the definition of "fucktarded"

BIP100 is less fucktardalishous?

No, I'm increasingly getting the sense that BIP100 is equally broken. Having miners decide on the blocksize makes no sense from a game-theory point of view. The block size is there to put a check on their ambition.

i agree BIP100 and this idea are on about the same level of crazy.

The people running nodes have the right to claim decision over the block size as they are the ones to whom the costs are externalized.

thats like saying merchant accepting VISA should determine what the fee should be, that's nutty.

no.

the system should somehow allow for free tx, but encourage users to pay a fee, what better way then say "sorry only room for 10 free TX in this block"

and there you go, we have a way to transfer value for FREE but in the end everyone pays the tiny fee...

[brg444]

No. I will not sugarcoat these ideas because they are dangerous.

Making decisions on the security of a billion $ network based on targeting a certain transaction fee is the definition of "fucktarded"

BIP100 is less fucktardalishous?

No, I'm increasingly getting the sense that BIP100 is equally broken. Having miners decide on the blocksize makes no sense from a game-theory point of view. The block size is there to put a check on their ambition.

i agree BIP100 and this idea are on about the same level of crazy.

The people running nodes have the right to claim decision over the block size as they are the ones to whom the costs are externalized.

thats like saying merchant accepting VISA should determine what the fee should be, that's nutty.

no.

the system should somehow allow for free tx, but encourage users to pay a fee, what better way then say "sorry only room for 10 free TX in this block"

and there you go, we have a way to transfer value for FREE but in the end everyone pays the tiny fee...

 

You've been drinking Adam? Your logic makes no sense. Does the VISA merchants pay for the deployment of the VISA network? If you answer no, as you should, you should realize why your comparison is "nutty".

the system should somehow allow for free tx, but encourage users to pay a fee, what better way then say "sorry only room for 10 free TX in this block

That is EXACTLY how it works right now so... why do you wanna change it?

[adamstgBit]

No. I will not sugarcoat these ideas because they are dangerous.

Making decisions on the security of a billion $ network based on targeting a certain transaction fee is the definition of "fucktarded"

BIP100 is less fucktardalishous?

No, I'm increasingly getting the sense that BIP100 is equally broken. Having miners decide on the blocksize makes no sense from a game-theory point of view. The block size is there to put a check on their ambition.

i agree BIP100 and this idea are on about the same level of crazy.

The people running nodes have the right to claim decision over the block size as they are the ones to whom the costs are externalized.

thats like saying merchant accepting VISA should determine what the fee should be, that's nutty.

no.

the system should somehow allow for free tx, but encourage users to pay a fee, what better way then say "sorry only room for 10 free TX in this block"

and there you go, we have a way to transfer value for FREE but in the end everyone pays the tiny fee...

 

You've been drinking Adam? Your logic makes no sense. Does the VISA merchants pay for the deployment of the VISA network? If you answer no, as you should, you should realize why your comparison is "nutty".

the system should somehow allow for free tx, but encourage users to pay a fee, what better way then say "sorry only room for 10 free TX in this block

That is EXACTLY how it works right now so... why do you wanna change it?

cuz soon miners will say "sorry only room for 0 free TX in this block" on pretty much every block and that makes me le sad, le very sad.

at one point they might say "sorry only room for a TX with a fee >0.001BTC" and that makes me le mad, le very mad! 

[hdbuck]

good adam, glad you stopped cheering for sum twisted BIPs and got into the centralization/security issue.

keep diggin


ps: how about BIP000? https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1170700.0 

[adamstgBit]

good adam, glad you stopped cheering for sum twisted BIPs and got into the centralization/security issue.

keep diggin


ps: how about BIP000? https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1170700.0 

BIP00 is fine until miners are losing money because

a) they cant fit all TX in a block even some with fees
b) bitcoin become expensive to use therefore less useful, making its value DROP.

[hdbuck]

good adam, glad you stopped cheering for sum twisted BIPs and got into the centralization/security issue.

keep diggin


ps: how about BIP000? https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1170700.0  

BIP00 is fine until miners are losing money because

a) they cant fit all TX in a block even some with fees
b) bitcoin become expensive to use therefore less useful, making its value DROP.

This is all extrapolations.

+ I dont see how miners would loose money including only transactions with fees. Besides, halving is coming so...

Bitcoin's security should not be cheap, it is precisely what drives its token's value, again, not freely spamming the holy decentralized ledger with coffee tips.

For this you can use whatever altcoin thats suits you. Maybe even banks blockchains? or ripple. ^^

Bitcoin is not for the mass, it is not user friendly. Hence, the mass dont care about bitcoin, or only when they get bailed in... but still not for buying crap over the internet.