Quote from: jbreher on March 20, 2017, 07:13:18 AM

Quote from: iamnotback on March 19, 2017, 09:49:18 AM

However presuming some transactions pay less per byte than others (and higher valued transactions can afford to pay more per byte), the economic converse effect occurs wherein the miner has the incentive to make the smallest block possible or below the size where propagation latency is linearly proportional to block size (i.e. the latency that is a constant factor independent of data transferred), which is again not a free market limit on block size and not a fee market.

So if I understand you correctly, you assert that the fact that not everyone is willing to pay the same transaction fee rate in BTC/B, this is somehow demonstrative of a failure of free markets? Cause that's what it looks like you are claiming.

You seem to have successfully demonstrated the central argument that each miner is incentivized to include as many high-BTC/B transactions up to the point where transaction fee = marginal orphanage cost. So what is the problem? Why do you consider this as 'not free market'?

I see nothing in this that suggests BU is worse than core in this regard. Help me understand.

You've entirely missed the point, which that so called equilibrium point doesn't exist as explained below...

Quote from: iamnotback on March 20, 2017, 08:16:01 AM

Re: Do you think "iamnotback" really has the" Bitcoin killer"?

Quote from: dinofelis on March 20, 2017, 05:47:43 AM

Simply ridiculous. By the time his equilibrium is reached, nobody has a copy of the bloc chain any more except for the miners with their 100 GB/s links between them. And they won't have any transactions to put in their blocs.

This is not a PoW system any more, but a Proof of network link.

That was an important insight. Thanks. And it is exacerbated by the fact that the network hashrate and propagation is not equally distributed, thus it gets much worse for everyone but the winner-take-all cartel, until the kill-the-network (shoot myself in the foot) "equilibrium" is never reached because with 51% they can set any fee the market will bear. And at 33% they are already selfish mining (possibly disguised as slower propagating large blocks) which means their cartel is gaining more than their proportional share of the rewards (because they waste less hashrate than the rest of the network because they see their block solutions instantly) thus 51% is inevitable as they plow greater profits into faster growing hashrate than the rest of the network (as well the rest of the network is incentivized to join the cartel and accept signed reputation on blocks to get instant propagation time for even large blocks).

Bottom line ultimate result is a winner-take-all monopoly on setting the transaction fees as high as the market will bear. The power vacuum will be filled by cartel, whether it is the bankster controlled Core or a new (Chinese controlled?) cartel run by Ver and Wu, same centralized stench either way. The difference is that we will have loads of chaos while Bitcoin Unlimited goes through that break-their-back phase of the non-cartel miners in order to consolidate 51% control.

At least SegWit can give us Lightning Networks which is good for hype about enabling instant transaction scaling. And Ethereum is about to beat Bitcoin to market with this scaling feature! While Rome burns on a stupid fight over which cartel will control Bitcoin. Bitcoin Unlimited has to keep all transactions on chain which means no instant transactions and as I pointed out before, Roger Ver has technological myopia about the security of 0-confirmation transactions.

Folks Satoshi's PoW is broken and it can't be fixed. You are hereby forewarned that something new will be required. But no one has yet shown what can scale up decentralized. None of the other altcoins shit does either, and I have analyzed it all in very great detail.