Quote from: gmaxwell on February 02, 2016, 03:36:18 AM

Quote from: YarkoL on February 01, 2016, 08:03:37 PM

And who erects the fences? Who wears the crown?

The same force that prevents you from spending my coins: the hardcoded rules that define the Bitcoin system, autonomously enforced by every user.

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on February 01, 2016, 08:11:49 PM

Rather than cap the blocksize, I would rather raise the minimum non-zero fee, to say 1 penny.
Either pay a penny, or don't.

Who decides what a bitcoin is worth?

I suggested a penny as a minimum non-zero fee.
The idea is to have a discrete, granular unit
(obviously higher than a satoshi) so that the
problem you described where transactions
with "any fees at all" would not be negligible.

This penny could be converted into satoshis
and later adjusted by miners via emergent
consensus.

Quote

Quote

Consider that 200tps would give you $172,800 a day in security under such a scheme.

What reason do you have to believe that 200 TPS is viable in a decentralized consensus system or will be in an interesting timeframe?

I'm not sure if you are asking whether its
technically viable, or adoption wise.

As far as the adoption, it will be decades
before subsidies become miniscule and therefore
there is enough time for orders of magnitude of growth.
If not, then Bitcoin is probably a failure. As
Satoshi said "I'm sure that in 20 years
there will either be very large transaction
volume or no volume.

Quote

What happens if 200 TPS _is_ in fact viable, but at the limit of it... but the offered load at a 1ct fee is 40000 TPS? Do you expect the miner(s) to turn down an extra $34m/day in income to preserve decentralization?

Obviously, that is a different problem
than not having enough
fees.

If there is demand for 40,000 TPS, it
doesn't make sense to limit the network
to 200 tps. I think I see what you're
saying as far as very large blocks could
create a less decentralized landscape, but
on the other hand, accomodating the greater
load through other layers would create its
own form of centralization.

This is an interesting area to think about.

Quote

Why do you believe $172k/day is adequate security? That is only $1200/block. If someone accepts a single confirm, then it would be pretty profitable (200% ev) to attempt a reorg attack against them if you have access to--say-- 10% of the hashpower and can make a vulnerable $12k transaction with them.

I never said $172 was adequate necessarily;
it was just an example. We could possibly
have higher fees than a penny or more transactions.
How much security do you feel is adequate?