Quote from: thezerg on July 29, 2015, 03:06:36 PM

Quote from: smooth on July 29, 2015, 01:44:26 AM

Quote from: thezerg on July 29, 2015, 01:29:17 AM

decision to force a fee market is a centralized solution

On it's face this is a nonsense argument since any development decisions are centralized in the same manner.

Increase the blocksize, decrease the blocksize, or leave it alone, they are all (centralized) development decisions.

It's also false that anything is really centralized about it because if there were truly a consensus for change (over the objections of the 'centralized' developers) there would be a successful fork.

Yes all dev decisions are essentially centralized, including the decision to NOT do something. Since that is trivially true, I am talking about the effect of the decision. And in one case miners can optimize their profitability by choosing to include transactions while in another case they are artificially limited.

Brg444 asked if I was for completely lifting the limit. I would be from a theoretical perspective but from practical engineering experience its makes sense to have what is called a "sanity check". This is a limit that you expect to never be reached. If it is, something is very wrong with the system. Therefore if it was up to me, I would choose a bump to (say) 4 MB and then a periodic increase that mirrors txn adoption curves.

If we were creating a more complex solution in a less constrained environment, I would let miners expand the block with high fee txns (which I described previously) and I would implement something that puts the limit at (say) 10x the average of last month's fee paying txns. The problem with the latter though is that a miner could artificially expand the block size by including a bunch of fake txns is his own blocks. This can be solved with a payout pool (half the txn value goes into the pool) rather than a direct payout.

Quote

The only way to make software secure, reliable, and fast is to make it small. Fight Features. - Andy Tanenbaum 2004

IDK about this out of context quote but Tanenbaum's approach is to put every feature in isolation so if one has an issue the whole system does not go down. Linux, Windows, etc instead take the philosophy that essential features should be placed together to increase performance and decrease overall complexity. It does not matter if the whole fails when one does because every feature is essential. Ofc, things have gotten pretty lenient WRT "essential" features in Linux/Windows lately...

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on July 29, 2015, 01:56:56 AM

Quote from: thezerg on July 29, 2015, 01:29:17 AM

Gold is unique and was the most efficient soln for thousands of years cementing its social perception of value. Bitcoin at 1mb is more like the iphone. It will be outcompeted in price (efficiency) before the majority of the world was even introduced to smartphones with the obvious result that the majority of phones are android.

Gold is not unique. Silver. QED.

Why do you speak of "fee market" in the singular?

By unique I was referring to people's inability to create new elements. You can't just brew up gold 2.0 in the lab. In that context silver is unique also.

Quote

Do you not understand on- and off-chain fee markets will exist at Layers 1 and 2+, competing to be more efficient at bundling tx for eventual reconciliation with and inclusion into the Mother Blockchain?

You seem to, with the reference to the fact that "real markets evolve spontaneously and in a P2P manner to address real issues."

How does simply staying at 1MB (and rejecting the Red Queen interpretation) preclude such real markets' spontaneous evolution?

By what logic do you conflate a dearth of consensus for increased blocksize with "a centralized solution?"

Bitcoin and FinTech is invading the banker's space because of inefficiency. Technology in all domains replaces low-tech solutions due to inefficiency. Deliberately introducing inefficiency into the system (forcing a fee where one is not needed -- from the user's perspective efficiency is fee/amount transferred) is basically asking for new technology to replace bitcoin.

The first apps to go will be colored coins (smart contracts) and immutable ledgers. If these become useful, the money function of the chain that hosts them will have a much better operational efficiency (you don't have to move bitcoins into these coins, trade a stock, and then move them back). If this coin/chain delivers similarly to Bitcoin on basic premises (scarce, decentralized, no premine etc) Bitcoin will be replaced. In that case the BEST outcome for Bitcoin will be a gold analogy (store of value only). However I have serious doubts about that because Bitcoin does not have gold's history, intrinsic value, etc.

Another outcome would be if a SC takes on the colored coins and immutable ledger function. This would probably preserve Bitcoin's value since the SC is denominated in BTC. Yet moving from SC to bitcoin chain is awkward so as Cypherdoc likes to argue all the coins might drain out of the bitcoin chain over to the SC. I differ from him in my analysis because in this case at least BTC's value is preserved. However, I find it hard to believe that a startup company would produce a SC with no advantage to themselves... they'll either produce a non-SC chain and out-mine other people in the early days or they'll be a per txn fee going to the startup.

Oh not the sidechains debate again!