later a miner must still cover his costs. if this is not the case he has two choices: quitting or raising fees (lets assume they are all honest and nice for simplicity reasons).
Reality shows us that a lot of miners will mine at a present loss and speculate on future value.
We should not assume that miners are "nice", or "honest", it's a much safer bet to assume that they are greedy.
if he is "allowed" to make bigger blocks he has a third choice: invest in bandwith and make bigger blocks.
If blocks are bigger he won't have a "choice", he'll *have* to create bigger blocks by including whatever comes his way that carries a fee.
The miner won't be held back by block propagation time since it's to become O(1) with the introduction of IBLT.
In other words, the marginal cost of including a transaction in a non-full block will be so low for the miner that includes it, that he will have no economic incentive to not include it.
And by doing so he will push the storage cost to the network as a whole, it's a "privatized gain, socialized cost" situation if you will.
more transactions in a block means that small changes in fee have a bigger impact on the miner.
By saying that, you make the implicit statement that someone, somewhere will be able to set a minimum fee, which is not the case, the whole isStandard() band aid is a joke in this regard.
If people can send small transactions with tiny fees to miners, the miners will have an economic incentive to include them as long as the fee is > 0.
thats right, but who said that if we raise blocksizes the system is more valuable?
it has the possibility to get more valuable.
The system doesn't need low value actors to increase its overall value, on the contrary, including those creates the risk that the system will crumble under its own weight.
miners control the resource (blocksize) and the price (fee): they compete regardless of blocksize or transaction count.
That is incorrect. The only choice miners get is "should I include this transaction in my block?".
The answer is easy, it's a simple comparison of the marginal cost of inclusion versus the attached fee, and with IBLT the marginal cost of inclusion will not be constrained anymore by block size.
In other words, miners will mine huge blocks at everyone's expense because they won't directly bear the actual cost of this inclusion.
if that would be the case i would move my hole wealth to that altcoin, because i dont think bitcoin will survive if there is an obviously better alternative
(btw what is your opinion about sidechains for micropayments? thats what i am unsure about...)
If you're able to describe an alternative where some system has all the advantages of bitcoin without none of its drawbacks, then very well, go ahead, I'm listening.
This system will either be inferior, or suffer from the same issues.
And if such a magical system actually exists, then very well, it deserves to win anyway.
despite you constantly hand-waving away the reality that moment the tx fee goes up, the users walks out the door
You confuse reality and speculation on one hand.
Don't worry about reddit, they'll always have doge to throw at each other.
Poll
