Peter Rizun who presented at the scaling conference and published papers on the fee market.
I will assume you are simply joking and not stooping to the level of Carlton by
accusing those who hold different opinions as scammers.
Peter, Greg, myself, and a few others discussed Peter's paper in the following
thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1274102.0;all
It's a pretty good read.
I will assume you are simply joking and not stooping to the level of Carlton by
accusing those who hold different opinions as scammers.
Peter, Greg, myself, and a few others discussed Peter's paper in the following
thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1274102.0;all
It's a pretty good read.
I always enjoy reading your comments, jonald_fyookbool. Please consider coming over to https://bitco.in/forum/ once and a while!
On the topic of block-size dependent orphaning risk, I remember when I first released my transaction fee market paper, Maxwell and Co. said that orphaning wasn't a deterrent against larger blocks because miners use Corallo's Relay Network and thus don't suffer block-size-dependent orphaning risk (and then later they said that we can't have bigger blocks because orphaning risk would be too high ... but let's ignore that contradiction for now).
Blockchain.info keeps tabs on orphaned blocks, and I wrote a script to scrape their site and import that raw data into Mathematica. The data goes back about two years and only appears to be missing a gap from last summer.
If the theory that larger blocks actually are more likely to be orphaned than small blocks is true, then hopefully there would be evidence of this in real orphan data. The figure below shows that indeed this does appear to be the case. Orphaned blocks are consistently larger (on average) than nearby blocks in the main chain.
Indeed, miners incur a real cost by producing extra block space; block space behaves like a normal commodity.