Re: Permanently keeping the 1MB (anti-spam) restriction is a great idea ...

If "enough" (1 large or many small) miners are willing to fill 20 MB blocks of ~0 fee transactions,

Why would they be motivated to do so? If there's no motivation, then the rest of the argument does not stand.

Quote from: gotpetum on February 10, 2015, 07:01:49 PM

then some bitcoin users will send ~0 fee transactions, and some miners that mine for transaction fees will stop mining, which weakens the security of the bitcoin network.

Why would these ones stop mining? They would still be profiting. I don't get it.

They'd stop mining because they wouldn't be profiting. It would be like if Amazon lowered the price of hot cakes to $0. Some other retailers would stop selling hot cakes.

That's definitely not how it works. You can't just choose which miner will process your transaction.

Quote from: gotpetum on February 10, 2015, 08:12:15 PM

Quote from: R2D221 on February 10, 2015, 07:38:03 PM

Quote from: gotpetum on February 10, 2015, 07:01:49 PM

Increasing the block size limit reduces transaction fees. Eventually, miners are not mining for transaction fees, but mining as stakeholders to maintain the integrity of the blockchain. Only stakeholders mining doing PoW is like a really inefficient PoS.

What's the logic here? If miners are not mining for transactions fees, they are still mining for the subsidy. Either that or it would be a truly altruistic act. And even if it was, they are not proving their stakes at all. They are still proving they have done some work.

As the bounty decreases, and if the transaction fees decrease (as a result of block size increasing), then non-stakeholders will have no (or decreasing) incentive to mine. Stakeholders, on the other hand, will need to mine to keep their bitcoins safe.

This is all based on your assumption that miners will start leaving, which simply isn't true. There's no motivation for them to leave.