Quote from: DooMAD on September 09, 2015, 06:12:29 PM

Quote from: marky89 on September 09, 2015, 05:59:50 PM

Quote from: DooMAD on September 09, 2015, 05:52:29 PM

Quote from: brg444 on September 09, 2015, 04:33:04 PM

Quote from: Peter R on September 09, 2015, 04:25:57 PM

Quote from: turtlehurricane on September 09, 2015, 03:56:47 PM

Quote from: Peter R on September 09, 2015, 04:56:21 AM

Quote from: turtlehurricane on September 09, 2015, 04:29:46 AM

No one has real data to show that a higher block limit = more fees overall for miners, it is simply a misunderstanding of how transaction fees work in real life.

Here is real data that shows that over the last five years, higher block sizes = more fees overall for miners.

Block size has not been changed over the last 5 years, this is what I mean by people fundamentally misunderstand the issue

What are you talking about? Block size has unquestionably changed (increased) over the last 5 years. The increase in the block size--such that it's now approaching the anti-spam limit--is what has precipitated this debate.

Peter your chart is misguiding obviously as it shows an increase in transactions, not block size, all happening under the same limit.

The increase in fees paid is a result of more transactions, not bigger blocks.

There's nothing "misguiding" about that chart. It clearly demonstrates that more transactions equals more fees collected. That's why we should alter the blocksize limit to allow more transactions. If we don't raise the cap, the only way for revenues to continue to rise is to raise the fee itself. But if that gets prohibitively expensive for the average user, they'll simply transact on another chain and miners will get less revenue than they would with a larger blocksize limit. Forcing an unnatural fee market will not help scalability and will deter new users. A cautious, responsible and preferably (IMO) flexible increase that keeps centralisation to an absolute minimum is the best way forward. The only people still denying that are the ones who envision Bitcoin as an exclusive little club for the wealthy and frankly I can't wait to leave all those people behind.

Mere capacity is not the only concern. And reducing the complexity of a fee market to being "unnatural" and "will not help scalability," or assuming that it is necessarily a deterrent to adoption -- I don't buy it. I'm not convinced by your sectarian perspective, either.

Where did I say it was the "only" concern? I clearly said: "A cautious, responsible and preferably (IMO) flexible increase that keeps centralisation to an absolute minimum". I've taken on board the considerations of maintaining a sufficiently decentralised system. I recognise the importance of that, but there is still a balance to be struck against capacity. I've made -numerous- attempts to be reasonable and discuss solutions that would strike a balance that doesn't result in any reckless increases in blocksize, but it's like banging my head against a wall because certain people won't budge. They genuinely believe that capacity isn't an issue and the only concern is centralisation. I'm tired of it. So if I'm displaying a "sectarian perspective", that's where it's come from. Too many MP fanboys spouting too much MP guff.

And to further clarify, I'm not ruling out fee markets altogether, I just don't think we should hit a solid wall and ramp the fees up too quickly as a result. Yet another reason why I've been pushing for a dynamic limit like BIP106 (but with alterations to the doubling/halving bit as that seems excessive). Something like this seems perfectly reasonable, or perhaps my (even more conservative) adjustment described here.

How about we eliminate centralization risks forever and still serve your demand for capacity?

https://www.mail-archive.com/bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net/msg07937.html