Quote from: Andre# on January 18, 2016, 01:29:50 PM

Quote from: AlexGR on January 17, 2016, 11:09:22 PM

Quote from: Andre# on January 17, 2016, 10:36:15 PM

Hypocrisy? Let me see... Fees are supposed to replace the block reward, even when blocks stay at 1 MB. So 1 MB of transactions should yield 25 BTC in fees. On average, 1700 tx fit in a full block. So 1 tx requires a fee of 25/1700 = 0.0145 BTC, which is atm $5.58. That's 35x more than $0.16. I won't get upset over $0.16, but more than $5 is quite something else.

Personally I expect that subsidy reduction will mostly be covered by price increase in BTC.

BTC can rise as much as it wants, but $5 is still $5 (you can decrease the fees in terms of BTC, but if miners need currently 25*400 = 10 kUSD, that's what they need. If you state that at some point in the future, all miners' revenue should come from fees, then it's ALL revenue. It will only be different if a) blocks can get bigger, or b) blocks can be more efficient (like SegWit). Double the no. of tx, then the fees in today's USD will halve in the long run. It's that simple, really.

Quote

As far as fees are concerned, we'll see how it goes. We are somewhat far from the point of replacing the subsidy and by that time a lot will have changed, both in blocksize and scaling solutions.

The decrease is exponential. It goes pretty fast. And by limiting the usage of BTC (to 1700 tx per block, or hardly twice of that), you can wonder how high the price can get.

I like your arguments. It's right that a decrease in btc doesn't count, as long as most people will be paid in $ you've got to think in fiat. Whatever btc price, 5$ is still 5$. And I just don't understand why blocks size is not adapted? Is there any reason for that?