fees imposed after cap coin creation?

[schone]

Once the 21mil cap is reached.  Will people running the server nodes be able to impose block inclusion fees or will it always remain voluntary from the user side only?

If it remains voluntary, what is the incentive left for node operators if theoretically no one wants to donate a fee?

If it becomes imposible, how are we guarding against price fixation by node operators and thus creating a new "central bank" ?

Thanks!

[FreeMoney]

Attaching a fee is voluntary and always will be. Miners can use the fee to determine if they want to include the tx or not. So we could get to a point were no fee tx will never get processed, but strictly speaking you could do the work yourself.

[MoonShadow]

If it remains voluntary, what is the incentive left for node operators if theoretically no one wants to donate a fee?

The most likely scenario is that major Bitcoin banks (Mybitcoin.com x1000) that are generating more for the security of their own members than for profit will be motivated to have interlocking agreements to process the free transactions of each other's members, even if they would otherwise ignore free transactions.  It is unlikely that free transactions would actually ever be completely ignored by the whole of the Bitcoin network.  It's a form of charity to process free transactions, particularly if the miner must choose between fitting a free versus paid transaction into the block, but there are other reasons to generate than simply profit.  For example, a minority of hashing in the past has been done by users who have a need for electro-resistive heat, and therefore lose nothing by generating even at a loss.  Also, major charities might support Bitcoin mining so that the donations sent to them will be processed in a timely manner rather than wait for an indefinate period of time to see it done.  Such charities would have an economic incentive to support free transaction generation, and even if they only included free transactions sent to themselves in the beginning, interlocking agreements between charities would have similar effects as the interlocking agreements between banks noted above.

Another similar example is companies themselves.  Imagine how much Ford Credit would save by switching from a bank that supports sales of Ford vehicles to a Bitcoin processing center that exists primarily to support feeless transactions sent to Ford?  Or Wal-Mart might be a better example.  It's in Wal-Mart's own best interests to absorb the costs of transactions for it's customers, and after a certain point, it's cheaper for Wal-Mart to generate for their own transactions than to ask every single customer to tack on a transactin fee.

[j16sdiz]

If it remains voluntary, what is the incentive left for node operators if theoretically no one wants to donate a fee?

The most likely scenario is that major Bitcoin banks (Mybitcoin.com x1000) that are generating more for the security of their own members than for profit will be motivated to have interlocking agreements to process the free transactions of each other's members, even if they would otherwise ignore free transactions.  It is unlikely that free transactions would actually ever be completely ignored by the whole of the Bitcoin network. 
...

When a few major banks holds most of the cpu power. Other miner can't generate coin within reasonable efficiency -- the time lag for other miner to download the chains.

There maybe some other "technical" restriction, just like our stock market have.
(for example, your access to bank's chain is delayed by some minutes, unless you pay some $$$.  As the banks always have highest cpu power, this would make 3rd party generating blocks almost impossible.)

[MoonShadow]

  As the banks always have highest cpu power, this would make 3rd party generating blocks almost impossible.)

Nonsense.  There is no such thing as third party generation.  I'm on the same tier as ArtForz, I just don't have the same kind of hardware.  You can't generalize your situation and project that upon the rest of the user base.

[j16sdiz]

  As the banks always have highest cpu power, this would make 3rd party generating blocks almost impossible.)

Nonsense.  There is no such thing as third party generation.  I'm on the same tier as ArtForz, I just don't have the same kind of hardware.  You can't generalize your situation and project that upon the rest of the user base.

I am hypo-theorizing a network, which:
- Banks have most the CPU power...
- Multiple banks forms an alliance
- "The alliance" is interconnected with each other
- Those outside the alliance don't have access to most-up-to-date blocks generated by the alliance.
- Those outside the alliance have delayed (let's say, 10 minutes) access to the chains and blocks from the bank.


Generating blocks need access to the chains,
so, delaying the block access make other impossible to generate (useful) blocks.

In this case, the alliance would almost always have the control.
This is basically what we have in stock market today.

[MoonShadow]

I am hypo-theorizing a network, which:
- Banks have most the CPU power...
- Multiple banks forms an alliance
- "The alliance" is interconnected with each other
- Those outside the alliance don't have access to most-up-to-date blocks generated by the alliance.

A cartel is difficult to maintain in a true market, because the smaller members always have an incentive to cheat.

- Those outside the alliance have delayed (let's say, 10 minutes) access to the chains and blocks from the bank.

The percentage of relative power of the cartel must rise in conjunction with the delay.  If the delay were actually ten minutes, the cartel would need at least twice the computational power of the entire remainder of the network.  A 5 minute delay would require at least 50% more than the entire remainder of the network.  Even a delay of a few seconds puts the cartel at a disadvantage.

Generating blocks need access to the chains,

And the cartel will need access to the rest of the network as well.

so, delaying the block access make other impossible to generate (useful) blocks.

Incorrect.  See above.

In this case, the alliance would almost always have the control.
This is basically what we have in stock market today.

In your presented case, the cartel would be very fragile, even if it could ever even develop the dominance.  The network is currently very small, projecting the size of the network when the userbase is ten times larger tells me that the network will become very difficult, indeed.