Quote from: tvbcof on January 05, 2015, 05:46:12 PM

Quote from: solex on January 05, 2015, 07:55:18 AM

Quote from: tvbcof on January 05, 2015, 06:56:06 AM

Doesn't matter if the transaction fees are high or low. Doesn't matter if ....

To be honest, I have not previously considered the points you make above. I have always taken Satoshi's block rewards->fees evolution at face value, and am not convinced that the majority of miners will work for zero income. Obviously this does happen to some of them, occasionally.

I'm pleasantly surprised to see you say this. Still, it's a hypothesis on my part, and the appropriate thing to do with a hypothesis is to file it away and match it against future observations.

Another somewhat weaker hypothesis is that some of the value streams that I alluded to are quite valuable indeed if enough data can be collected. We could see mining completely subsidized in order to capture these value streams (and other's I've not thought of.)

With respect to the 'who spends what where' data, the 'who' part is still the most challenging. Eventually Big Bro will probably solve that with a 'internet drivers license' type thing, but if/when that happens it's still not clear how available the data will be to private industry. It will probably be a 'public/private partnership' arrangement with horse-trading that favors the big guys would be my guess. In the here-and-now, when you see someone wanting you to use a particular authenticator, it's a pretty sure bet that that is what they are after. Outfits with a large network footprint have other ways of course, but authentication optimizes things significantly.

A very common way to make money in tech is to achieve something that a big player will want then either sell it to them or sell the ability to obtain it (e.g., your company.) One of my (very initial) hypothesis about OpenTransaction is that this might be their game because a successful transport layer would be a high-value item in a bunch of ways.

Quote from: solex on January 05, 2015, 07:55:18 AM

A real-world analogy must be the oil market. With the oil price down 45% a lot of producers are unprofitable, pumping for zero, and considering closing down. But there are profitable producers and the oil industry will continue, even if the price stays low and half of the producers go out of business.

The energy markets are probably about the worst example of a 'free market' that one could find. For one, there are huge national security issues which touch almost every aspect of it. For two, it's probably not a complete junk theory that our monetary system itself(!) is heavily tied in through what is monikered the 'petro-dollar' (and the 'world reserve currency' status of the USD.) None-the-less, the old supply/demand laws are so powerful that they cannot be buried forever and they can be expected to rear their 'ugly heads' even in a heavily manipulated market like energy...with time...

actually, the hypothesis is a decent one (ouch, that's painful to say) and i have myself thought about this. but i don't think it's a potential problem until 2140 when Bitcoin inflation goes to zero. certainly, it could manifest itself earlier if the market perceives it as a bonafide problem and attempts to front run it.

however, i agree with solex that it can probably be better modelled by what we have in the energy mkts. and oil companies don't seem to be having a problem; nor even smaller players who nip at their heels thru private oil wells or shale opportunities.

also, Adrian pointed out that your claim of "unlimited HW" is really Econ 101.