Quote from: Odalv on June 30, 2015, 08:22:15 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on June 30, 2015, 08:16:06 PM

Quote from: Odalv on June 30, 2015, 08:08:42 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on June 30, 2015, 08:07:07 PM

Quote from: Zangelbert Bingledack on June 30, 2015, 08:05:32 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on June 30, 2015, 08:01:22 PM

we agree on the need for a fee mkt. where we apparently disagree is where it is to be enforced. i say, instead of with artificial block size caps which require a centrally planned decision with core devs, we offload it away from core devs to the actors involved directly in the tx negotiation; miners and users. yes, miners might have trouble distinguishing btwn spam and real tx's but the point is that they can construct a block with however and whichever many tx's they wish to include based on their internal assessment of the situation at the time. only they can do this.

I agree with this, especially if you mean removing the hard cap entirely and letting orphan considerations limit the blocksizes based on miner choices.

Quote from: cypherdoc on June 30, 2015, 08:01:22 PM

only users can determine how much they are willing to pay.

Assuming you mean as part of a market process where users and miners meet at price points, I agree.

yes, this is what i mean. thanks.

Yes, the more mining costs the more miners will mine.

of course, the sarcasm.

the point is, miners control the size of their blocks. they will construct them to be profitable.

This with big hashing power will create rules. You .. small miner .. will have to accept all blocks they will create. If you are lucky then you found 1 block per month.

why would a small miner be any more likely to choke on a large block than a large miner?