Analysis and list of top big blocks shills (XT #REKT ignorers)

[bargainbin]

... I already explained that we do not lose fifty percent of our security at the halving, since the exchange rate also effects this dynamic ...

Not really. This year, we are paying  roughly 10% of Bitcoin's total value, or what people here call "market cap," to secure it. In other words, we are currently spending roughly a dime to store (secure) a dollar for a year.
After the halvening, we will be paying only a nickel.
It doesn't matter how much a dollar is worth, the ratio remains the same.
Same for efficiency/cost of mining gear.

[VeritasSapere]

There is no reason why bitcoin can't be the all in one package we all want it to be someday but right now there is not enough demand to support the network with low fees.
We should only raise the block size in minuscule increments to keep fees high enough to support a robust mining community.

I like your point.

Except that right now the network should not be supported by fees but by the block reward.

Your missing my point completely transaction fees + block rewards are more or less = to the amount of money reinvested in hardware to mine bitcoins. As the block rewards drop in these massive chunks every 4 years so dose the amount we as a network spend on security. Let me be clear Block rewards account for the majority of this and with each halving day we lose more or less 50% of our network security. The fees the network gathers today are virtually worthless some miners don't even bother processing transactions because its not worth their time.

I already explained that we do not lose fifty percent of our security at the halving, since the exchange rate also effects this dynamic, after all security was not reduced after the last halving. It would only take sixty times the transaction volume we have today to match the block reward we have as well, this can take a longer period of time since we do still have a block reward subsidy in place to bootstrap Bitcoin for the next few decades, we do not need to sacrifice all of these use cases and characteristics of Bitcoin to pay for security, it is exactly these use cases and characteristics of Bitcoin that will pay for its security going into the future.

It costs less for an attacker today to conduct a 51% attack then it would have 4 years ago. You see hardware becomes cheaper and cheaper but as the block reward drops so dose reinvestment. Soon we well reach a plateau were miners invest less and less and at the same time hardware will continue to advance, hardware that's forever cheaper and cheaper.  Its under these conditions of low reinvestment and antiquated hardware making up the majority of the network that will allow for a governmental agency or disgruntled corporation to come in with a relatively small amount of money and blow this house of cards down. A irreversible block increase now would most likely devastate the network in 8 years.  Since we can't predict the price nor the demand for bitcoin in 8 years we should do the prudent thing and position the network for a very long and slow growth curve lasting decades.

I am not even advocating a long and steady growth curve, I would be fine with a simple increase to two megabyte and then adjust again as needed, I think that BU best accomplishes this goal. It is absolutely not true that a fifty one percent attack cost less today then it did four years ago, back then asics where not even being used so comparing the hash rate and the costs involved are worlds apart.

Antiquated hardware is unprofitable and just ends up being scrapped, furthermore old hardware is not as powerful either. It is not the case that a government or corporation could easily come and commit a fifty one percent attack, it would cost a lot of money, and as adoption and the price increases this will cost even more money. I am a miner myself, and it is not becoming cheaper to be a miner, technology keeps advancing and as a miner you need to keep upgrading and cycling these machines in order to keep operating profitably.

[VeritasSapere]

There is this idea that we must choose between settlement network or payment network, this is a false dichotomy, a false choice. Bitcoin can be both of these things and more, they actually reinforce each other in a synergistic fashion. By attempting to put one above the other you are actually breaking both.

Bitcoin is and can be many different things to different people, there are many coders and engineers who think that we can scale Bitcoin, therefore I think that we should, even if Core thinks that we should not, their reasons for not doing so remains ideological and I have a distinctly different vision for Bitcoin which also happens to align closer to the original vision of its founder as well. I am sure that there are many people that did originally sign up for this original vision and do not appreciate this bait and switch.

I appreciate most of the work done by Core but I do not want a technocratic group of engineers and coders to dictate to us what Bitcoin should become and what its economic policy should be, this should be determined by the market itself instead. I rather have the engineers remind us ideologues of what is possible so that we can then pursue our dreams to create a better world. It is not impossible to increase the blocksize limit, so I reject the notion that we must choose between settlement layer or payment network now.

I think we all want the same thing we deffer only on how to get to that promised land. For some the path is clear, larger blocks. For me and others the path we walk of larger and larger blocks with insufficient fees leads to network collapse.

If the blocks become larger it implies that there is increased adoption and use of Bitcoin. A high volume of low fee transactions over the long run would actually pay out more for the miners compared to a high volume of low fee transactions. The idea that if we increase the blocksize over time as the technology allows as it improves would lead to the network collapsing is not supported by the facts.

If we had a sixty four megabyte blocksize limit for instance with the same fees per transaction payed out today it would already exceed the present block reward. It is not impossible to have blocks this large, in a decade from now it might even seem trivial. It would even take BIP101 eight years to reach this point, and the newly proposed Bitcoin Classic more then twelve years. Most of the other blocksize limit increase proposals are even more conservative then this, which is fine. My point being is that a high volume of low value transactions can pay for the networks security and this would not lead to the network collapsing as you claim, especially as the limit is slowly increased as our technology improves.

Your post, which I tend to agree with, raises a related question I have.  

In a world where the block size is capped at X and demand for block space is greater than X, there are no guarantees a particular transaction broadcast to the network will settle/verify.  In that world, a transaction verifies I.F.F. its included in a block, which may be due in large part to the fee paid rather than the order of broadcasting. So, there is uncertainty with these transactions RE: settlement completition and time of settlement.  Now also imagine this capped block size world is one where folks think Bitcoin should be a settlement network for high-dollar transactions like houses, land, cars, etc. and not everyday purchases.  Consider that often times, these types of big-ticket purchases also involve a title transfer/registration with and of the property purchased, and that title transfers are often based in law going back centuries (just look at any jurisdiction's real property statutes - including statutes on conveyancing and  recording; common law; and the UCC on the perfection of security interests). Hint: Time of conveyance/recording is critical to perfecting a property right.  So, in this world, where timing is everything, what professional is going to recommend using bitcoin to facilitate the transaction with so much uncertainty?   I think everyone interested in the block size debate outcome, whatever position that is, would really benefit from taking a step back and thinking about who the end user is supposed to be and how the Bitcoin protocol is supposed to compliment and work with existing businesses, industries, customs, and laws (its not going to work to just burn everything and start over from nothing).

This is a good observation, in effect what this means is that transacting on the Bitcoin blockchain would become much more unreliable if we allow the network to become overloaded by letting the blocks fill up. I have always said this, this is in part why not increasing the blocksize limit would lead to Bitcoin becoming a much worse user experience compared to today, this would also not be good for adoption.

Further, wallet software User experience is very, very poor in a hyper-competitive fee market.

[Quantus]

Please tell me what do you think will happen IF If in 8 years we have negative growth but a 2mb or even 8mb blocksize?
Will transaction fees alone be enough to secure the network?
Will miners process torrents of spam for dust?
Will our network be stronger or weaker?
Are you willing to risk everything on the unfounded assumption will continue to grow, grow at a never before seen rate and for years?

What do you think happens if your wrong?

[VeritasSapere]

... I already explained that we do not lose fifty percent of our security at the halving, since the exchange rate also effects this dynamic ...

Not really. This year, we are paying  roughly 10% of Bitcoin's total value, or what people here call "market cap," to secure it. In other words, we are currently spending roughly a dime to store (secure) a dollar for a year.
After the halvening, we will be paying only a nickel.
It doesn't matter how much a dollar is worth, the ratio remains the same.
Same for efficiency/cost of mining gear.

What matter is how much a Bitcoin is worth compared to fiat, since if the market capitalization of Bitcoin increases, the block reward will be worth more in terms of fiat value and real world purchasing power. This would stimulate increased mining since there will be profit to be made, since miners costs are still predominately in Fiat and it is the purchasing power of those Bitcoins that really matters not the amount of Bitcoins that are made. This is why the ratio does not stay the same, if the market cap of Bitcoins doubles so does the amount payed for security, these two things are explicitly linked.

[jonald_fyookball]

Please tell me what do you think will happen IF If in 8 years we have negative growth but a 2mb or even 8mb blocksize?
Will transaction fees alone be enough to secure the network?
Will miners process torrents of spam for dust?
Will our network be stronger or weaker?
Are you willing to risk everything on unfounded assumption will continue to grow?

Peter R has already made a strong case that a fee market exists
without the blocksize limit.

We all know that fees become more important as the subsidies diminish
but that in no way means that we'll get more TOTAL fees by reducing the supply
of transactions.  Quite possibly it would do the opposite.

[Indianacoin]

Why don't people understand that;

• Increased Blocksize would lead to a bigger Blockchain that overwhelms the storage capacity of smaller nodes.
• More space for transactions will decrease the market for transaction fees.
• Bitcoin should be a currency for the Elite and not for your daily cup of coffee.
• Sidechains will solve the problem of smaller block size limit anyway.
• Consensus might not be achievable and there will suddenly be two types of Bitcoin.

[VeritasSapere]

Please tell me what do you think will happen IF If in 8 years we have negative growth but a 2mb or even 8mb blocksize?

Nothing catostrophic would happen, less would be payed for security since obviously the world does value Bitcoin as much as I thought it would under that scenario. This is not catastrophic and I do not think that having more expensive fees would help this situation at all.

Will transaction fees alone be enough to secure the network?

Yes it will after a few decades or sooner depending on the rate of adoption.

Will miners process torrents of spam for dust?

They would not, they would simply choose not to include those transactions.

Will our network be stronger or weaker?

Stronger, I think that realistically there really only is one way forward, if you do not think this will succeed that is your prerogative, I do still believe in the original vision of Bitcoin.

Are you willing to risk everything on unfounded assumption will continue to grow?

Yes, since if it does not grow it will have failed anyway. Bitcoins security relies on this assumption.

I’m sure that in 20 years there will either be very large transaction volume or no volume.

[jonald_fyookball]

Why don't people understand that;

• Increased Blocksize would lead to a bigger Blockchain that overwhelms the storage capacity of smaller nodes.
• More space for transactions will decrease the market for transaction fees.
• Bitcoin should be a currency for the Elite and not for your daily cup of coffee.
• Sidechains will solve the problem of smaller block size limit anyway.
• Consensus might not be achievable and there will suddenly be two types of Bitcoin.

Those are all controversial assertions that many don't agree with.

Increased blocksize?  No problem, storage capcities are always rising.  Plus
Satoshi envisioned some degree of full node centralization.

Transaction space means MORE transactions and thus more fees
even though the fee per transaction might decrease, but not necessarily the total.

I think Bitcoin should absolutely be available for coffee purchases.  I reject elitism.

Sidechains do not solve scalability.

[Quantus]

"I’m sure that in 20 years there will either be very large transaction volume or no volume."

This sentiment unsettles me. This all or nothing attitude is defeatist.  

[bargainbin]

... I already explained that we do not lose fifty percent of our security at the halving, since the exchange rate also effects this dynamic ...

Not really. This year, we are paying  roughly 10% of Bitcoin's total value, or what people here call "market cap," to secure it. In other words, we are currently spending roughly a dime to store (secure) a dollar for a year.
After the halvening, we will be paying only a nickel.
It doesn't matter how much a dollar is worth, the ratio remains the same.
Same for efficiency/cost of mining gear.

What matter is how much a Bitcoin is worth compared to fiat, since if the market capitalization of Bitcoin increases, the block reward will be worth more in terms of fiat value and real world purchasing power. This would stimulate increased mining since there will be profit to be made, since miners costs are still predominately in Fiat and it is the purchasing power of those Bitcoins that really matters not the amount of Bitcoins that are made. This is why the ratio does not stay the same, if the market cap of Bitcoins doubles so does the amount payed for security, these two things are explicitly linked.

But it doesn't matter. A safe that's "just good enough" to secure 10 dollars is probably not good enough to secure a billion, agree?
The attacker doesn't want to break Bitcoin to prove a point, the amount he's willing to spend on the attack is directly proportional to the potential reward. So if it costs him a buck ten to steal a dollar now, after the halving it will cost him 55 cents.
Bitcoin price in fiat doesn't play into this, because it affects both the cost of the attack and the reward equally.
Tell me if I'm being unclear.

[Quantus]

... I already explained that we do not lose fifty percent of our security at the halving, since the exchange rate also effects this dynamic ...

Not really. This year, we are paying  roughly 10% of Bitcoin's total value, or what people here call "market cap," to secure it. In other words, we are currently spending roughly a dime to store (secure) a dollar for a year.
After the halvening, we will be paying only a nickel.
It doesn't matter how much a dollar is worth, the ratio remains the same.
Same for efficiency/cost of mining gear.

What matter is how much a Bitcoin is worth compared to fiat, since if the market capitalization of Bitcoin increases, the block reward will be worth more in terms of fiat value and real world purchasing power. This would stimulate increased mining since there will be profit to be made, since miners costs are still predominately in Fiat and it is the purchasing power of those Bitcoins that really matters not the amount of Bitcoins that are made. This is why the ratio does not stay the same, if the market cap of Bitcoins doubles so does the amount payed for security, these two things are explicitly linked.

But it doesn't matter. A safe that's "just good enough" to secure 10 dollars is probably not good enough to secure a billion, agree?
The attacker doesn't want to break Bitcoin to prove a point, the amount he's willing to spend on the attack is directly proportional to the reward. So if it costs him a buck ten to steal a dollar now, after the halving it will cost him 55 cents.
Tell me if I'm being unclear.

^I've been trying to figure out a way of saying exactly this all day! oh God Thank you! You were crystal clear!

[iCEBREAKER]

My fear is that people who want the settlement layer to be more like a payment layer are like people who want to build computer games out of an assembly language. We need payment layers, not to turn the settlement layer into something that it is not.

I suppose it is good PR to say that this is all a debate over whether we should make Bitcoin usable or not, but let's be honest, this debate is about how we think we should make bitcoin usable. Do we try to make bitcoin itself super-usable at the potential expense of its reliability and trustworthiness? Or do we try to create layers on top of bitcoin that preserve bitcoin's trustworthiness and yet also provide usability via those layers? (A common analogy, do we try to improve the internet to the point where everyone suddenly gets that it is useful, or do we develop layers on top of the internet, like the Web, that make its usefulness obvious?)

My argument is this: Money systems depend on trust and usability, one cannot exist without the other, just as the OP said. However, if we try to merge trust and usability into one system, we risk a situation where the system lacks both. It will still be difficult to use, and yet people won't feel it is a safe place to put their money either. In other words, it will remain exactly as it is today. Modern money systems don't work that way and neither should bitcoin.

Layered tiers of a monetary system is foundational to how modern money works. The "M"s designation of different types of money --m0, m1, m2, etc -- is meant to represent these layers. The further up you go in layers, the faster the money becomes, but also the less dependable and trustworthy the money becomes. Likewise, base money, like cash, is slow and cumbersome, yet it is the most trustworthy form of money in an economy. In the modern economy, cash is considered real money and more real and dependable than bank credit. If the banking system experiences a crisis, bank credit could become worthless overnight, whereas cash will only rise in value. So there is an intrinsic tradeoff to having fast money and that is that it becomes less reliable money. Same was true back in the days when banknotes were backed by gold. The physical note was a faster, more liquid form of money. Gold was cumbersome and slow but more trusted and dependable.

"Settlement layer" is just another way of saying "base money." They are really the same thing. The reason a layer is the settlement layer is precisely because it is made out of base money, i.e., real money. If I went to you and said, "look, I promise I'll swing buy and pay you $100 in cash tomorrow" that would be the payment layer. It is fast, but it lacks trust because ultimately real money hasn't been transferred until I actually pay you in hard cash. When I do pay you in hard cash, that is called settlement. Settlement layer simply refers to people or institutions concluding all promises to pay with actual payment. So the settlement layer is actually just base money. In the modern financial system, when you pay someone with cash, you are using the settlement layer.

A settlement layer is the fundamental monetary force behind the economy. In the modern system, the settlement layer is institutionally controlled by the central bank. They are the ones who have the sole right to create cash, and as such money held in the central bank is considered as good as having cash. Only commercial banks are allowed to hold accounts with the central banks and all settlements between commercial banks are mostly concluded by transferring money held in accounts at the central bank. That is to say, for all intents and purposes, the central bank is the settlement layer in the modern system.

Bitcoin functions as a central bank. It could, in theory, replace central banks. It prints base money, called 'bitcoins,' which is then hands out to the miners who are the equivalents of the commercial banks. In the Bitcoin system, miners are bankers. The central bank, Bitcoin, then is ultimately controlled by the collection of those miners who can decide to set Bitcoin policy. This is exactly how the modern banking system works, the bankers collectively decide on how the central bank should set policy.
Many people think of banks as a place people store their money for safe keeping, and then the bank uses that money to make more money and spark growth in the economy through lending. However, what people forget is that the power of banks comes not from the fact that people give them money, but from the fact that they hold base currency. Today, most base currency held by banks comes from the central bank printing it and handing it to them, not from people depositing it. In fact, most people don't deposit cash into banks anymore, they just move bank credit around. By having large sums of base currency, banks can settle with other banks and neither bank needs to be concerned with the internal affairs of the other.

In other words, banks allow consumers and the larger economic system to use money off-chain, so to speak, that is their function, always has been. Then they settle accounts at the end of the day on-chain, that is to say at the settlement layer. It is precisely this power that allows them to lend (i.e., create broad money) and creates the varied payment networks. If all transactions had to be done through the central bank then that one bank would control everyone's money and decide who deserved loans and who didn't. It would be a centralized economy on steroids, the financial system wouldn't exist. By not trying to let the central banks do everything, the monetary system was allowed to become robust. (Obviously, it is corrosive and needs to be replaced by something better, but one can't deny that the modern financial system has been a huge success even if it is nearing the end of its days.)

Furthermore, a global central bank, Bitcoin, is simply not going to work unless it is trusted by everyone. And it won't be trusted by everyone unless it is considered fair. Trust in a global central bank is not going to be there if it is perceived as being controlled by someone untrustworthy. If someday the majority of miners work for the Chinese government, how much trust can there really be in bitcoin by people living in other countries? Decentralized control is the only way to achieve a global central bank. But my understanding is that increasing the block size can potentially lead to increased incentives for mining centralization, precisely the opposite of what we want. And once a high degree of centralization occurs, since the miners must approve future changes, what can get us to reverse course? This would weaken the inherent trust in the base currency that comes from the decentralization of control. Put simply, raising the block size limit threatens to undermine the foundation of the bitcoin system which is decentralization, resulting in a less trusted base currency. Since trust is the most important feature of base currency, this isn't something people should take lightly.

Off-chain transactions, payment layers, allow for the growth of a more decentralized ecosystem around the base layer as well as the emergence of cryptocurrency banking and lending, and more widespread use of 2.0 tokens and currencies built on top of bitcoin. By creating payment layers you will far outstrip what base bitcoin can ever achieve in terms of usability left to its own devices. This is because the whole role and purpose of payment layers is to increase usability, and if that is how they are financially incentivized, they will come up with the best solutions and thus open the doors for mass adoption. You get both a profoundly trusted base layer, and a decentralized, competitive market for payment layers and usability, all rooted in a non-state, non-institutionally controlled currency. By not constricting the system to ONLY base money, broad money creation can allow for an explosion in the bitcoin ecosystem and innovation around the use and control of that broad money.

On the other hand, raising the block size limit increases mining centralization, reducing trust in the base currency, but doesn't increase incentives for profiting from innovation around increased usability solutions, thus limiting banking and lending innovation. Essentially, it keeps bitcoin where it is today, stagnating under the weight of the fact that people don't really need it and it is not really a safe place to keep your money. The killer app for bitcoin hasn't been invented yet, raising the block limit helps to assure that it never will be. This is precisely because the future killer apps are the payment layers and all that comes with them. When Bitcoin achieves a profound level of usability from the payment layers, and a high degree of trust from its decentralized base settlement layer, it will be completely unstoppable. But if you water down the decentralization and think the current system, just with a larger block size limit, is good enough as a payment system ... we will never get past where we are today.

That is one damn fine essay!  Spectacularly informative and well-written, it should be required reading at Draper University.

Who is this Ilogy guy, and how do I subscribe to his newletter/put in a resume?

More timely, trenchant analysis:

"The reason is because there is such a heavy push for scalability, even at the expense of decentralization, that decentralization advocates are playing defense. Right now the best way to improve decentralization is to prevent a scaling solution that does further harm to it. Your question is "why don't we see an equally strong response to fix this situation," yet that is precisely what the small block side of the block size debate is.

When the enemy is attacking your fort with superior numbers, you don't sally forth and meet them in the field. You turtle and wait until they are weakened to the point where you can move to the offensive. In the block size debate that means that even though there is a massive angry army of people who are demanding a block size increasing now -- people who are convinced that the only reason it's not happening is because of a small minority of people seeking to undermine bitcoin for their own gain --you slowly and steadily make rational arguments for why a rash increase threatens the core of what Bitcoin is until they stop being so angry and consider that your concerns need to be met as well.

Only then do you sally forth with serious suggestions of how to increase decentralization."

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3yvkep/devs_are_strongly_against_increasing_the/cyhf4tz

[Fatman3001]

"I’m sure that in 20 years there will either be very large transaction volume or no volume."

This sentiment unsettles me. This all or nothing attitude is defeatist.  

Or just that he understands the economics involved.

Please tell me what do you think will happen IF If in 8 years we have negative growth but a 2mb or even 8mb blocksize?
Will transaction fees alone be enough to secure the network?
Will miners process torrents of spam for dust?
Will our network be stronger or weaker?
Are you willing to risk everything on the unfounded assumption will continue to grow, grow at a never before seen rate and for years?

What do you think happens if your wrong?

Bitcoin will be dead. Regardless of block size.

[VeritasSapere]

"I’m sure that in 20 years there will either be very large transaction volume or no volume."

This sentiment unsettles me. This all or nothing attitude is defeatist.  

I find it more empowering then anything else. It is about standing up for our principles and doing what we believe is right, whether we are successful or not, at least we do the right thing. It is worth trying otherwise how would we ever know if it would work otherwise. This is the thing about political experiments as well, often either they work or they do not, with millions of life's at stake, yet I would argue that it is still worth it.

[Lauda]

Other answers later. If you have links to help me to understand your position, I'd appreciate it (instead of looking through youtube and randomly looking at presentations)

Here is the video that I watched (multiple times). The slide was from this presentation: Mark Friedenbach - Alternatives to a Block Size Limit as a Rate-Limiter for Validator Resource Consumption for Consideration.

This sentiment unsettles me. This all or nothing attitude is defeatist.  

I dislike it as well.

Bitcoin will be dead. Regardless of block size.

It will not.

[iCEBREAKER]

I think Bitcoin should absolutely be available for coffee purchases.  I reject elitism.

Bitcon is permissionless, so you are perfectly free to purchase coffee if you pay an appropriate fee.

But you conflate market-rate fees with "elitism."  Thus, what you are actually rejecting are the fundamental economic concepts of trade-offs and limited resources/unlimited demand, in favor of your ideological 'Free Shit Army' attachment to endless subsidized entitlements.

[VeritasSapere]

... I already explained that we do not lose fifty percent of our security at the halving, since the exchange rate also effects this dynamic ...

Not really. This year, we are paying  roughly 10% of Bitcoin's total value, or what people here call "market cap," to secure it. In other words, we are currently spending roughly a dime to store (secure) a dollar for a year.
After the halvening, we will be paying only a nickel.
It doesn't matter how much a dollar is worth, the ratio remains the same.
Same for efficiency/cost of mining gear.

What matter is how much a Bitcoin is worth compared to fiat, since if the market capitalization of Bitcoin increases, the block reward will be worth more in terms of fiat value and real world purchasing power. This would stimulate increased mining since there will be profit to be made, since miners costs are still predominately in Fiat and it is the purchasing power of those Bitcoins that really matters not the amount of Bitcoins that are made. This is why the ratio does not stay the same, if the market cap of Bitcoins doubles so does the amount payed for security, these two things are explicitly linked.

But it doesn't matter. A safe that's "just good enough" to secure 10 dollars is probably not good enough to secure a billion, agree?
The attacker doesn't want to break Bitcoin to prove a point, the amount he's willing to spend on the attack is directly proportional to the potential reward. So if it costs him a buck ten to steal a dollar now, after the halving it will cost him 55 cents.
Bitcoin price in fiat doesn't play into this, because it affects both the cost of the attack and the reward equally.
Tell me if I'm being unclear.

The cost of the attack is measured in fiat. Since to buy and setup more then fifty one percent of the hashpower would cost more then two hundred and sixty million dollars (just ran a rudimentary calculation). If the price of Bitcoin however went up, it would in effect mean that the Bitcoin protocol is paying more for its security in terms of fiat or real world purchasing power. This would incentivize more miners to come into the ecosystem thereby increasing its security. Therefore it can be argued if the price of Bitcoin doubles that the security of Bitcoin would also double meaning that it would cost twice as much to attack the network, in this case for example it would cost more then five hundred and twenty million dollars, and this is just for the setup costs, not including maintenance or even electricity costs which would over the long term might even cost more then the machines themselves. Not to mention that the attacker would lose much more from such an attack then they could possibly ever gain.

[fisheater22]

[...]
Transaction space means MORE transactions and thus more fees
even though the fee per transaction might decrease, but not necessarily the total.
[...]

If it costs ~nothing for miners to process transactions (vs. mining empty blocks) & plenty of block space, why would I pay > satoshi tx fee?

[VeritasSapere]

[...]
Transaction space means MORE transactions and thus more fees
even though the fee per transaction might decrease, but not necessarily the total.
[...]

If it costs ~nothing for miners to process transactions (vs. mining empty blocks) & plenty of block space, why would I pay > satoshi tx fee?

Since it does cost something for the miners to process transactions, increased orphan rate is one factor. Therefore if you want your transaction to be confirmed faster or even confirmed at all, you should include a fee. It is up to the miners to decide whether it is worth including your transactions or not. If it is worth including your transaction they will include it, if it is not they will not, just increase the fee until miners accept your transaction. This is the essence of the free market behind fees. There already is a free fee market and we do not need to introduce an arbitrary limit in order to impose this.