Quote from: justusranvier on February 09, 2015, 04:26:46 PM

Quote from: justusranvier on February 05, 2015, 08:55:49 PM

Quote from: gmaxwell on February 05, 2015, 08:49:46 PM

I was already assuming a perfectly idealized p2p network that had no overhead or sub-linear scaling. I've done as much to explore the space of efficiency gains in this kind of system as any two other people combined here, come on. Please don't try to play off that I don't know how the system works.

What I mean is that your perfectly idealized p2p network is still wrong.

A more detained explanation is forthcoming.

This is the explanation to which I was referring:
http://bitcoinism.liberty.me/2015/02/09/economic-fallacies-and-the-block-size-limit-part-2-price-discovery/

Wow! Great article and I think the system you describe seems like the ideal way to price the various services required to keep the bitcoin network running, and could put an end to the block limit debate once and for all. A miner creating a large block could have to pay a premium to the nodes for promptly propagating the block. Users sending transactions may also have to pay for their transaction to be propagated. Both of these would have the effect of disincentivizing spammy transactions that may overburden the network. Did I get that right more or less? This is the first I've heard of such an idea for bitcoin.

I had never heard of micropayment channels, and that's still the piece that I'm having the hardest time grasping. I clicked on the link to read about micropayment channels some more, but it's still hazy to me. I might just need to spend more time reading about it.