Quote from: AlexGR on March 05, 2016, 12:40:53 PM

Quote from: ahpku on March 05, 2016, 12:26:06 PM

Quote from: AlexGR on March 05, 2016, 11:53:11 AM

Quote from: ahpku on March 05, 2016, 11:35:45 AM

Quote from: AlexGR on March 05, 2016, 11:22:53 AM

...
I'm not worried. Just pointing out the obvious pattern:

"Oh I can't tolerate BTC that has a fee market, it's unacceptable if fees go up, the solution to spam can't be to make txs more expensive" ...

Not sure where you're getting this. Most are fine with having a "fee market." It's creating demand by imposing production quotas (1MB cap) that most don't want.

Criticism varies.

"Ohhh my tx didn't go in with 1c", "bitcoin is unreliable because fees fluctuate", "I don't want a fee market because it excludes the poor", "3tx/s are too little", "fuck the 1mb central planners" etc etc.

You might be missing the point.
It's not that the fees are high, but that they'd have to be ~$6.00 per tx, at current exchange rate and current block size limit, for Bitcoin to stop relying on subsidies (block reward). $6 per transaction, with BTC exchange rate @ $400, is too damn high.

To replace subsidy you'd need 100MB blocks, assuming that there is 100x demand, and that the quality of this demand is on par with our current top-tier urgent txs that are paying 0.06$ per tx.

The problem is that 100MB blocks don't work. And it's not "Core's fault". And it's not like Gavin Andersen or Classic can make them work either. This type of size will eventually work as software and hardware technology evolves.

what is wrong with subsidies? everybody knows they are needed to boot strap the system. in the long run no one is in favor of subsidies.

answer this simple question: how much breast milk is right for your baby? when do you think your baby will be grown big enough to start eating on its own?