Bitcoin 20MB Fork

[NewLiberty]

This is what it boils down to: scarcity. There’s no room in Bitcoin for inflation of any kind. Other applications and whatnot can be built on top of it as is. It’s for the world to adapt and conform to Bitcoin, not the other way around.

I don't see transaction volume increase as a change in inflation so much as a change in velocity.  Henry Hazlitt who is credited with bringing Austrian Economic theory to the English speaking world, would I think agree that is not something that ought to be artificially influenced either by constraint or encouragement.  Hitting the limit would be an artificial constraint, removing it ahead of (3) would be an encouragement, but for inflation it is a no-op.

With some people, watching them wield economics terms of art they do not understand is like watching a child run with scissors.

Many others may also conflate these, so a few words around it might be useful?  Lest some think that there is any attempt to equate Bitcoin with anything else, but who also may think that the principles that govern human behavior are all different with respect to Bitcoin and do not apply to it.
On Block Size and the Velocity of Money...

When the Keynesians attempt to increase velocity they do it by increasing money supply in order to attempt to get the money to 'burn a hole in your pocket'.  So that quote from above may be relating the max block size increase as a velocity increasing move (which for Keynesians usually means money supply increases).  

However, with Bitcoin, an increase in the max block size does not increase the money supply at all.  There is not even any new spending incentive created.  Bitcoin doesn't start to burn a hole in your pocket.  All it does is potentially reduce the confirmation time, and remove an artificial floor in the transaction cost (which is a form of economic friction).  Removing the friction is a good thing.  It is one of the things that Bitcoin is very good at doing.

And in further contrast to the Keynesians, the contrary is more the empirical truth with Bitcoin.  Transaction volume (velocity) has never yet been constrained by the protocol's Max Block Size, only by miners.  The queueing we have is almost entirely constrained to the no-fee transactions.  So now in approaching the point where the protocol constrains it, intelligent people may disagree whether or not Bitcoin undergoes changes simply by keeping the limit the same.  Such queueing would serve to artificially subsidize mining at the expense of users rather than let a freer market dictate transaction pricing.

I'd aver that consistently hitting the transaction velocity limit is a change.  It is as much a change as is changing that limit.  Neither have occurred in recent times and there are those that reasonably expect both.  Further, let me suggest that the change it is one which is very different in nature and effect from hitting a limit on supply (the 21M limit).  
This difference is one where supply being inflationary, and velocity not so...not at all.  Velocity (transaction volume) increase is a measure of the health of Bitcoin.  It is a virtue.

=======
Personally, I do agree with danielpbarron on the notion of running a full node.
To wit, I expect to maintain my nodes as full.  I do not expect everyone else to do so, and I do not hope to force them to do so either.  Daniel and Immanual Kant have the ethics right on this.

[1713929511]

1713929511

[1713929511]

1713929511

[1713929511]

1713929511

[1713929511]

1713929511

[1713929511]

1713929511

[1713929511]

1713929511

[traincarswreck]

what is bitcoin's function?

Money

cool. What is money. 

don't respond.

[traincarswreck]

This is what it boils down to: scarcity. There’s no room in Bitcoin for inflation of any kind. Other applications and whatnot can be built on top of it as is. It’s for the world to adapt and conform to Bitcoin, not the other way around.

I don't see transaction volume increase as a change in inflation so much as a change in velocity.  Henry Hazlitt who is credited with bringing Austrian Economic theory to the English speaking world, would I think agree that is not something that ought to be artificially influenced either by constraint or encouragement.  Hitting the limit would be an artificial constraint, removing it ahead of (3) would be an encouragement, but for inflation it is a no-op.

With some people, watching them wield economics terms of art they do not understand is like watching a child run with scissors.

Many others may also conflate these, so a few words around it might be useful?  Lest some think that there is any attempt to equate Bitcoin with anything else, but who also may think that the principles that govern human behavior are all different with respect to Bitcoin and do not apply to it.
On Block Size and the Velocity of Money...

When the Keynesians attempt to increase velocity they do it by increasing money supply in order to attempt to get the money to 'burn a hole in your pocket'.  So that quote from above may be relating the max block size increase as a velocity increasing move (which for Keynesians usually means money supply increases).  

However, with Bitcoin, an increase in the max block size does not increase the money supply at all.  There is not even any new spending incentive created.  Bitcoin doesn't start to burn a hole in your pocket.  All it does is potentially reduce the confirmation time, and remove an artificial floor in the transaction cost (which is a form of economic friction).  Removing the friction is a good thing.  It is one of the things that Bitcoin is very good at doing.

And in further contrast to the Keynesians, the contrary is more the empirical truth with Bitcoin.  Transaction volume (velocity) has never yet been constrained by the protocol's Max Block Size, only by miners.  The queueing we have is almost entirely constrained to the no-fee transactions.  So now in approaching the point where the protocol constrains it, intelligent people may disagree whether or not Bitcoin undergoes changes simply by keeping the limit the same.  Such queueing would serve to artificially subsidize mining at the expense of users rather than let a freer market dictate transaction pricing.

I'd aver that consistently hitting the transaction velocity limit is a change.  It is as much a change as is changing that limit.  Neither have occurred in recent times and there are those that reasonably expect both.  Further, let me suggest that the change it is one which is very different in nature and effect from hitting a limit on supply (the 21M limit).  
This difference is one where supply being inflationary, and velocity not so...not at all.  Velocity (transaction volume) increase is a measure of the health of Bitcoin.  It is a virtue.

=======
Personally, I do agree with danielpbarron on the notion of running a full node.
To wit, I expect to maintain my nodes as full.  I do not expect everyone else to do so, and I do not hope to force them to do so either.  Daniel and Immanual Kant have the ethics right on this.

You talk about Keynesian economics yet you ignore 20 years of lectures redefining the subject.  I cannot be more clear that the answer to this problem lies in the relevation of those lectures.  Those lectures explain the future, not because of voodoo, but because one can foretell the future with GREAT science.

For example Greece's conspiracy plan Z which is to peg their money to gold using smart contracts is really a function of the lecture Ideal Money that was given in Athens maybe 10 years ago: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-02-19/grexit-gold-backed-drachma-conspiracy-theory-or-plan-z

Its not really a conspiracy but rather good economics.

And here is the (rough) formalization of everything we have learned thus far from this whole project:

We have 3 basic needs, food, freshwater, and shelter.
Add to import this (and in relation to TWON and Nash/Szabo) the need for barter (ie money).

This arises 4 basic needs for the creation of wealth among nations.

Then if we can think about the 4 color map problem upside down.  We have defined the base Nash equilibrium needed for such growth.

Or in other words, if 5 nations arise and 2 provide "food" you do not have an equilibrium.

This shows then why humans evolved with 3 base needs and in-relation to inter-universal geometry (4 color problem). And begs the important question of whether life needs water, or if water is the most abundant or convenient progenitor of life on this planet.

Please don't delete my work

[traincarswreck]

There is one more missing variable, but alas it cannot very easily be relevated, because of our belief of the purpose and cause of "fighting" or "conflict" and relation our lack of understanding to "Ideal Money" or in other words the effects of an unstable global economic "situation", or the effects of floating currencies.

Humans (or life in general) is expected to evolve through perpetual conflict ONLY up until a point in which they develop and relevate a hyper currency (bitcoin).  And/or in other words this has to do a lot with the Wealth of Nations, in which these nations create a global economy and stop invading newly discovered lands.

If we understand the above post about the base needs for an equilibrium of wants that creates a stable "nation", when we understand also the cause of war (or peace).

And so what we can expect in the future is a society that cooperates more and teaches its peoples (and all life) about the benefits and importance of it.  We are in fact not destined to fight and we do not actually in the future rely on conflict to evolve (even in games says J.Smithy).

And so I worry about setting certain block size limitation based on the financial incentive required for securing "trust", because eventually this need will not exist, or at least not anywhere near to the extent we require it, or we think in the future we might require it.

I wonder if we can discuss then, whether or not this would be a kind of reverse inflation, a deflation, or something that might unravel the robustness of the entire system.

In other words, if all of this is about incentivizing a system against attackers, it will certainly, in the future, lose its coherence, if we do not plan for cooperation.  Of course if we do not believe in the possibility of a cooperative society then I cannot make this point.

[NewLiberty]

There is one more missing variable, but alas it cannot very easily be relevated, because of our belief of the purpose and cause of "fighting" or "conflict" and relation our lack of understanding to "Ideal Money" or in other words the effects of an unstable global economic "situation", or the effects of floating currencies.

Humans (or life in general) is expected to evolve through perpetual conflict ONLY up until a point in which they develop and relevate a hyper currency (bitcoin).  And/or in other words this has to do a lot with the Wealth of Nations, in which these nations create a global economy and stop invading newly discovered lands.

If we understand the above post about the base needs for an equilibrium of wants that creates a stable "nation", when we understand also the cause of war (or peace).

And so what we can expect in the future is a society that cooperates more and teaches its peoples (and all life) about the benefits and importance of it.  We are in fact not destined to fight and we do not actually in the future rely on conflict to evolve (even in games says J.Smithy).

And so I worry about setting certain block size limitation based on the financial incentive required for securing "trust", because eventually this need will not exist, or at least not anywhere near to the extent we require it, or we think in the future we might require it.

I wonder if we can discuss then, whether or not this would be a kind of reverse inflation, a deflation, or something that might unravel the robustness of the entire system.

In other words, if all of this is about incentivizing a system against attackers, it will certainly, in the future, lose its coherence, if we do not plan for cooperation.  Of course if we do not believe in the possibility of a cooperative society then I cannot make this point.

This hard fork gets a lot of attention, but it is not all of what Bitcoin is about.
It is instead, an example of one of its failings.  Yes, it is just about the balance between security and utility.  It is not about money supply at all.  
Your discussion of Keynesianism and ideal money, notwithstanding.

Does your notion of "ideal money" include manipulation of supply in order to "manage" an economy by a group of managers that claim to know more about what is right than everyone else?  If so, than this fork discussion is not where your notions belong.  The fork has nothing to do with money supply, it has to do with whether and how to relax a constraint on transaction velocity before that constraint becomes a limiting factor of Bitcoin's utility.  This fork is not inflationary or deflationary.

Yes... lets discuss your concepts, but in this thread they are off topic.  They were only raised here to show how they have no importance to this particular discussion.

[danielpbarron]

The fork has nothing to do with money supply, it has to do with whether and how to relax a constraint on transaction velocity before that constraint becomes a limiting factor of Bitcoin's utility.  This fork is not inflationary or deflationary.

The fork is exactly about money supply. The primary argument used by those in favor of Gavin's proposal is that the fork is needed in order to make bitcoin more inclusive. If we make concessions to these demands now, what is stopping the same people from insisting we create 5 million bitcoin to airdrop into the wallets of some 3rd world country? When getting "mass adoption" is the primary focus, you end up with things like the dollar. I don't want mass adoption; I want sound money.

[traincarswreck]

Does your notion of "ideal money" include manipulation of supply in order to "manage" an economy by a group of managers that claim to know more about what is right than everyone else?  If so, than this fork discussion is not where your notions belong.  The fork has nothing to do with money supply, it has to do with whether and how to relax a constraint on transaction velocity before that constraint becomes a limiting factor of Bitcoin's utility.  This fork is not inflationary or deflationary.

Yes... lets discuss your concepts, but in this thread they are off topic.  They were only raised here to show how they have no importance to this particular discussion.

My friend, "Ideal Money" is a lecture, that pertains to a very specific "notion" that is not mine...that says if a new money technology could be released, with a finite "money" supply, it would stabilize every global currency in relation to it.

The rest that you comment on, is not related to what I am pointing out.  I am suggesting in the future, with a cooperative society, we do not need the same level of security. This might change our formulas...but we aren't aware or able to discuss it if we do not believe in an eventually cooperative society.

In other words, satoshi nor szabo talked about what bitcoin might do to our economy, but it turns out Dr. Nash has been touring country to country for the last 20 years (same time szabo's blog exists), explaining exactly what bitcoin will do to our global economy.  This is fact.

[onemorebtc]

The fork has nothing to do with money supply, it has to do with whether and how to relax a constraint on transaction velocity before that constraint becomes a limiting factor of Bitcoin's utility.  This fork is not inflationary or deflationary.

The fork is exactly about money supply. The primary argument used by those in favor of Gavin's proposal is that the fork is needed in order to make bitcoin more inclusive. If we make concessions to these demands now, what is stopping the same people from insisting we create 5 million bitcoin to airdrop into the wallets of some 3rd world country? When getting "mass adoption" is the primary focus, you end up with things like the dollar. I don't want mass adoption; I want sound money.

changing money supply and chaning blocksize are too big different things.
you cant say: "this change is about changing money supply" and state a few sentences later that a new fork would be needed.

the difference is: people who have bitcoin would prefer mass adoption because it will value their coins higher - its the opposit with an higher money supply.

[NewLiberty]

The fork has nothing to do with money supply, it has to do with whether and how to relax a constraint on transaction velocity before that constraint becomes a limiting factor of Bitcoin's utility.  This fork is not inflationary or deflationary.

The fork is exactly about money supply. The primary argument used by those in favor of Gavin's proposal is that the fork is needed in order to make bitcoin more inclusive. If we make concessions to these demands now, what is stopping the same people from insisting we create 5 million bitcoin to airdrop into the wallets of some 3rd world country? When getting "mass adoption" is the primary focus, you end up with things like the dollar. I don't want mass adoption; I want sound money.

The slippery slope notion?

We are all likely in agreement that the fundamental purpose of Bitcoin is sound money.  If not, then another thread for dealing with "first principles" is needed.


One of the elements of sound money is its utility as a "medium of exchange".  This is what we are addressing with this hard fork.

The thing that stops the same people from destroying the sound money principle (and your example of 5 million more bitcoin airdrop) is the "store of value" element.

My last few posts here in this thread have been an attempt to remove the confusion between these things.  We can advance the "medium of exchange" utility, without harming the "store of value" utility at all.  This particular hard fork is not a negative impact to the store of value.  If anything, an increase in the velocity of money improves the store of value utility through increased liquidity.

I'm of the opinion that "Mass adoption" is a pipe dream (the market agrees with this).  I think it is decades away, if ever   However, I am working toward making it possible, and I am opposed to things that would make it increasingly impossible.
===

I also agree with your idea that doing something "because Gavin said so" is the height of laziness and foolishness.  I think even (perhaps especially) Gavin would agree with that.  His role is more of a curator of ideas and he should not be expected to come up with everything.
There are a whole branch of folks here that disagree with this.  They think that we should do just whatever Gavin proposes.  They think that "ossification" risk will kill Bitcoin.  They are as wrong as the people that think that we should not do something because Gavin proposes it.  It should not be about the personalities here.  Bitcoin is more important than that sort of political nonsense.

It is the responsibility of all of us out here in the cheap seats to add some peer-review rigorousness to the process.  Its a messy job.

[traincarswreck]

The fork has nothing to do with money supply, it has to do with whether and how to relax a constraint on transaction velocity before that constraint becomes a limiting factor of Bitcoin's utility.  This fork is not inflationary or deflationary.

The fork is exactly about money supply. The primary argument used by those in favor of Gavin's proposal is that the fork is needed in order to make bitcoin more inclusive. If we make concessions to these demands now, what is stopping the same people from insisting we create 5 million bitcoin to airdrop into the wallets of some 3rd world country? When getting "mass adoption" is the primary focus, you end up with things like the dollar. I don't want mass adoption; I want sound money.

changing money supply and chaning blocksize are too big different things.
you cant say: "this change is about changing money supply" and state a few sentences later that a new fork would be needed.

the difference is: people who have bitcoin would prefer mass adoption because it will value their coins higher - its the opposit with an higher money supply.

Lets be clear.  A fluctuating currency supply is not favorable.  But neither is an "Unstable" decision about block size.  They both produce the same unfavorable result.

We want a con census that puts the market psyche at rest.

We shouldn't care about a favorable block size...every one of us should only care about a final resolution of it.

And this leads us to the obvious solution, all of us to agree to keep it finite for a long time, say 5 years minimum.  In that time consensus to change will be impossible.  But in the future, we can use intelligent to change rather than conflict.  This seems all quite obvious and logical.

[traincarswreck]

The slippery slope notion?

We are all likely in agreement that the fundamental purpose of Bitcoin is sound money.  If not, then another thread for dealing with "first principles" is needed.

no.  and you don't know what sound money is.  You cannot ignore 20 years of lectures about what sound money is and that discuss it like you understand it.  Gavin proposes a test on the robustness of the system.  If the community continues to disagree and debate block size, then bitcoin remains broken.  We need a solid consensus, that is what sound money is based on.  Nothing else matters in regards to "sound" money.

[NewLiberty]

Does your notion of "ideal money" include manipulation of supply in order to "manage" an economy by a group of managers that claim to know more about what is right than everyone else?  If so, than this fork discussion is not where your notions belong.  The fork has nothing to do with money supply, it has to do with whether and how to relax a constraint on transaction velocity before that constraint becomes a limiting factor of Bitcoin's utility.  This fork is not inflationary or deflationary.

Yes... lets discuss your concepts, but in this thread they are off topic.  They were only raised here to show how they have no importance to this particular discussion.

My friend, "Ideal Money" is a lecture, that pertains to a very specific "notion" that is not mine...that says if a new money technology could be released, with a finite "money" supply, it would stabilize every global currency in relation to it.

The rest that you comment on, is not related to what I am pointing out.  I am suggesting in the future, with a cooperative society, we do not need the same level of security. This might change our formulas...but we aren't aware or able to discuss it if we do not believe in an eventually cooperative society.

In other words, satoshi nor szabo talked about what bitcoin might do to our economy, but it turns out Dr. Nash has been touring country to country for the last 20 years (same time szabo's blog exists), explaining exactly what bitcoin will do to our global economy.  This is fact.

We agree than?  These are off topic.
Have you found a thread where they are on topic?  Or want to start one?  I'd be happy to participate there.  Here they are noise.

The slippery slope notion?

We are all likely in agreement that the fundamental purpose of Bitcoin is sound money.  If not, then another thread for dealing with "first principles" is needed.

no.  and you don't know what sound money is.  You cannot ignore 20 years of lectures about what sound money is and that discuss it like you understand it.  Gavin proposes a test on the robustness of the system.  If the community continues to disagree and debate block size, then bitcoin remains broken.  We need a solid consensus, that is what sound money is based on.  Nothing else matters in regards to "sound" money.

In fact I can ignore them.  There is an easy button to do that.
If you care to find some way to link any of this to this thread's topic, we can engage that.

[yampi]

Bitcoin is money.
The blockchain is big enough as it is right now.
The huge blockchain is driving people away from the full node.

[Lauda]

Bitcoin is money.
The blockchain is big enough as it is right now.
The huge blockchain is driving people away from the full node.

And the current blockchain will end up driving people away from Bitcoin in the future. What are you trying to get at?

[traincarswreck]

Newliberty, WE are off topic until we relevate Ideal Money in relation to the OP.  It SEEMS otherwise, because we function from a false perspective that Satoshi is a person.  I'm likely away for 10 days regardless, I hope you all can finally become sincere.

In other words, the lecture serious Ideal Money was specifically prepared and given, on the exact topic of this OP.  You cannot ignore the lecture and refute this simply obvious truth. READ IT!

[bambou]

Bitcoin is money.
The blockchain is big enough as it is right now.
The huge blockchain is driving people away from the full node.

And the current blockchain will end up driving people away from Bitcoin in the future. What are you trying to get at?

maybe maybe not.

In other words, the lecture serious Ideal Money was specifically prepared and given, on the exact topic of this OP.  You cannot ignore the lecture and refute this simply obvious truth. READ IT!

get a life bru.

[NewLiberty]

Newliberty, WE are off topic until we relevate Ideal Money in relation to the OP.  It SEEMS otherwise, because we function from a false perspective that Satoshi is a person.  I'm likely away for 10 days regardless, I hope you all can finally become sincere.

In other words, the lecture serious Ideal Money was specifically prepared and given, on the exact topic of this OP.  You cannot ignore the lecture and refute this simply obvious truth. READ IT!

"Ideal Money" is a very broad topic.  
It is not so relevant here.
This fork is a very narrow issue.  Attempts to broaden it too much harms the discussion.

There are a great many posts in this topic to promote Nash's lecture series.  We all understand it is interesting.  It should be a separate thread, or condense something in particular that makes it relevant.  The normal thing is to put it in your .sig where everyone can see with each post, and stick to the topics of threads, please.

I could ask all to understand everything written in http://mises.org and the last 30 years but it would be silly.  It is a good thing to understand, but the relevant bits to this topic can fit in a few sentences.

The notion that we need to agree because it is bad for Bitcoin to disagree is also not helpful.  We either agree or do not agree.  When we do not agree we might end up with multiple consensus chains.  This is not the end of the world, or even the end of Bitcoin.    

Unless and until the fork happens, it is our responsibility to improve the understanding of the people that may be subjected to it.  To understand the problems with the proposals, and the difference between a good proposal and a bad one.

We also need to work toward understanding what brings us to this point:  What are the criteria for a hard fork of this nature?  Under what conditions may it occur?  When is it crazy and when is it sane, what justifies it if anything?
====

The problem with Gavin's proposal is that it is almost good enough temporary solution to become a permanent solution.  It's saving grace is that if implemented, then fixing it (by cutting out the exponential growth or reducing the size to fix a spam problem) would be a soft fork instead of a hard one.

I hope to get closer to an accurate indefinite solution.  One based on measurement and responses.

[iCEBREAKER]

If there is traffic to fill up blocks to that size, and the blocks cannot grow to that size, then the system fails.

Your lack of faith, imagination, and economic literacy does not constitute an emergency for Bitcoin.

Bitcoin is antifragile.  That means rather than fail in the face of adversity it grows stronger.

When blocks grow to >1MB, less important (IE valuable) transactions will simply move to other less cluttered blockchains.

This is Econ 101.  This is Julian Simon winning The Bet against doom-mongering catastrophist Paul Ehrlich.  This is the Substitution Effect, powered by the invisible hand.

Your Maximalist Monopolist conceit that Bitcoin is the only available blockchain in the entire universe (and thus must be all-inclusive) is demonstrably false.

Bitcoin The Canonical Reference Implementation's job is to replace the BIS, not fucking Visa, Paypal, Western Union, and little Sally's piggy bank.

The BIS effects every coffee purchase in the world, but not directly.  Bitcoin, as the new digital gold standard, is destined to do the same job, only better.

Individual central/local banks and payment networks will be replaced by any combination of sufficiently secured blockchains (merged mined and/or using different POWs).  The dark pools will be denominated in Monero.  Bitcoin isn't a one-size-fits-all solution for everyone and everything, although its blockchain technology will be extended for those purposes.

A $2 coffee or $20 remittance to Africa doesn't belong in the same dataset as billion dollar trans-institutional settlements.  If you insist they must cohabitate, Bitcoin will collapse under its own weigh, a hypertrophic dinosaur victim of its own success ready to die in the nearest tar pit or meteor crater. 

At most, blocksize should double when block reward halves.  Anything more is an inflationary free-rider-subsidizing Bloatcoin/Gavincoin/GigaCoin/VisaCoin alt-fork, not BTC proper. 

To believe that trade-offs do not exist and 20MB blocks are somehow magically free is also economic illiteracy.  Econ 101 tells us if you raise the cost of full nodes, you will have less of them. 

Expensive/limited bandwidth, not cheap disk space, is the problem (regardless of what RoadStress the idiot says).  The present ad-hoc attempts to subsidize nodes are a glaring admission of market failure, which will be greatly exacerbated by 20MB+ blocks.

Gavin's 20MB proposal is 100% textbook 'Embrace, Extend, Extinguish.'  Specifically, the 'Extend' phase.  And then comes the axe, as slow/hardened connections cannot propagate the bloat and nodes outside of Equation Group-vulnerable datacenters go dark, tearing holes in our mesh until only a fragile patchwork remains.

Keep Bitcoin Elite!^TM

[🏰 TradeFortress 🏰]

A $2 coffee or $20 remittance to Africa doesn't belong in the same dataset as billion dollar trans-institutional settlements.  If you insist they must cohabitate, Bitcoin will collapse under its own weigh, a hypertrophic dinosaur victim of its own success ready to die in the nearest tar pit or meteor crater. 

Yes they do.

Commerce on the Internet has come to rely almost exclusively on financial institutions serving as
trusted third parties to process electronic payments. While the system works well enough for
most transactions, it still suffers from the inherent weaknesses of the trust based model.
Completely non-reversible transactions are not really possible, since financial institutions cannot
avoid mediating disputes. The cost of mediation increases transaction costs, limiting the
minimum practical transaction size and cutting off the possibility for small casual transactions.

What is needed is an electronic payment system based on cryptographic proof instead of trust,
allowing any two willing parties to transact directly with each other without the need for a trusted
third party.

-Satoshi
https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf

Every single transaction that pays the cost per kB belongs in the blockchain, and the cost per kB should be low enough to make all reasonable transactions feasible. A $2 cup of coffee belongs in the blockchain every bit as much as a $200 payment.

What we need is:

1) charging miners for the cost of network transfer
2) charging transaction creators for the cost of network storage (if their UXTOs are not spent / not feasibly spendable)
3) removing the blocksize limit altogether.

[🏰 TradeFortress 🏰]

1) charging miners for the cost of network transfer
2) charging transaction creators for the cost of network storage (if their UXTOs are not spent / not feasibly spendable)
3) removing the blocksize limit altogether.

2) can be addressed by a 1 satoshi per day fee on all outputs less than 5460 satoshi UXTOs. Within a day this will prune all the 1 satoshi spam from the blockchain. The 5460 satoshi threshold can be halved every block cycle until eventually this fee no longer applies.