Quote from: adamstgBit on September 30, 2015, 05:34:32 PM

Quote from: brg444 on September 30, 2015, 05:22:37 PM

Quote from: adamstgBit on September 30, 2015, 05:13:31 PM

Quote from: worhiper_-_ on September 30, 2015, 05:09:18 PM

Quote from: adamstgBit on September 30, 2015, 05:05:36 PM

Quote from: worhiper_-_ on September 30, 2015, 04:58:43 PM

I liked when the interviewer said that Romanians don't like XT, he completely doged that question with an unrelated answer. I guess that must be the reason he wasn't as radical when supporting his opinions about bitcoin there.

Also, when he started using bitcoin there weren't any fees? Even if that's remotely true, the fees exist for a reason. Why would anyone be in support of a developer looking to take fees away from bitcoin? The fee market exists to satisfy demand and supply, and it has been doing that well. This is the last reason the block size should be changed. Getting content in the blockchain shouldn't be worthless, it should rather be expensive when done in large quantities.

he never said he wanted to "take fees away from bitcoin"...

shouldn't the people who actually do the storing and processing determine how expensive it should be? if they have any business sense they will try to get fees at a level where 80%+ of TX are willing to pay the fee to perform the TX, any less the 80% and they're losing out on TX volume, and more then that and they aren't getting enough fee pre TX.

Might just be me, but the only assumption I can come to by hearing Mike being nostalgic of a bitcoin without fees is this. I believe the existing fee market is good to provide balance between both parties involved (miners, users). IMO a rapid change to the block size limit could destabilize that.

I agree with that, but at the same time, doing nothing keeping the 1MB limit and hitting it will also destabilize that balance, probably to much gr8er degree.

BIP100's "let the miners deal with it." makes alot of sense

Yes, it makes a lot of sense to let miners set the supply of a resource for which they don't bear the costs. Roll Eyes

No wonder you're a child of Quebec's failed education system.

they do bear the costs!
and also they benefit from full nodes, so they would weigh all that and come up with a goooooooooood number.
game theory 101.

No, they don't bear the costs. They can trivially minimize them by cooperating and in general technology will increasingly reduce them by making propagation more efficient.

Also, full nodes have no direct benefits from them. They could very well do their job with a dozen of super nodes only.