Quote from: Cconvert2G36 on December 18, 2015, 11:32:42 PM

Quote from: BlindMayorBitcorn on December 18, 2015, 11:25:52 PM

Quote from: Cconvert2G36 on December 18, 2015, 11:21:26 PM

Quote from: wachtwoord on December 18, 2015, 11:19:35 PM

Quote from: Cconvert2G36 on December 18, 2015, 11:11:28 PM

Quote from: AlexGR on December 18, 2015, 10:46:44 PM

They have the incentive but they are not configured accordingly. Not all of them. That's why dust/spam/no-fee and "stress test" txs get processed.

Have you used the network lately? No-fee transactions aren't getting included, and definitely won't be once priority is removed. Dust and spam should not be subjectively determined, fee per kb is all that matters. Miners have a very real incentive to keep their blocks to a reasonable size, it's called orphan risk.

I send a zero fee transaction yesterday. It was included in the first block.

I never pay a fee if I don't have to and still I'm in favor of rising fees, by limiting supply (of space).

Enjoy it while it lasts.

At some point there will have to be a fees market because of the halvenings, right? Has anyone crunched the numbers? Are there studies? What will it look like?

Everybody agrees that there will be a fee market. Some just want to force it now, before the drop to 12.5 btc per block, which I think is ridiculously early and would be using the wrong (artificial vs market determined) mechanism. In the future, miners will be much more sensitive to their fee pricing, and the fee load will be spread over many more network users.

I just assume that technology will keep apace with increases. Is there any in principle reason that bigger and bigger blocks would necessarily lead to more centalization?

@Fatman Or that time I invested in RochambeauCoin on Cryptsy