Quote from: Peter R on September 24, 2015, 07:43:21 PM

Quote from: brg444 on September 24, 2015, 07:30:18 PM

Quote from: Peter R on September 24, 2015, 07:28:56 PM

Quote from: brg444 on September 24, 2015, 07:14:29 PM

Quote from: Peter R on September 24, 2015, 07:03:36 PM

Quote from: coalitionfor8mb on September 24, 2015, 06:38:04 PM

Quote from: Peter R on September 24, 2015, 02:57:59 PM

We should be able to test this empirically: if the theory is true, then, for example, we should never have a sustained period in the future where the total fees collected by miners is significantly greater than the aggregate losses due to orphaning.

1) We definitely should. We must let the pressure build up and see if the network effect alone can hold it. Maybe even let the pressure leave for a while.

The question is whether or not we have a choice. My prediction is that there will never be a sustained period in the future where aggregate fees are significantly greater than aggregate losses due to orphaning. The protocol will fork (or demand will leak somewhere else) before this happens.

Let's say "sustained" = more than 6 months and "significantly greater" = more than double.

A protocol fork implies enormously more costs and potential loss than a pivot toward alternatives. Please don't pretend the two are proportional options. They are not.

Personally, I see the protocol fork as the path of least resistance.

Anyways, regardless of what either of us think, my hypothesis can easily be proven wrong. All it would take is for aggregate fees to be significantly higher than aggregate losses due to orphaning over a sustained period. I believe this will not happen in the future.

But time will tell.

Yeah sure, bootstrapping a new economy surely is the path of least resistance, not cashing out to fiat to make whatever purchase you're trying to make....

By protocol fork, I just mean increasing the block size limit to satisfy demand. I don't understand how that implies "bootstrapping a new economy." Can you explain?

Look Peter it's quite simple, either you accept that for the block size to increase consensus needs to be reach by all actors of the Bitcoin market or you continue pretending that the demand of consumers & merchants for lower cost transactions will move the needle which it won't in that case if they "fork" it will be in their own cheap little altcoin.