Quote from: FiendCoin on May 04, 2017, 03:48:55 PM

My argument is, even if miners got BU or some other proposal through that gave them blocksize control, they are not going to raise the blocksize over an amount where they would lose out on rising transaction fees. Meaning, if you want bigger blocks so fees return to .10 cent, it won't happen. If you think they'll cripple one source of income, you're living in la la land.

1. pools dont NEED fee's today, yea its a bonus that can fluctuate but its not their main income. the reward is their main income.
the switch of income:bonus (from reward:fee to fee:reward) wont happen foe DECADES

2. pools would prefer to do things nodes accept to ensure they get atleast the reward. so pools are not gonna push any new rule or rock the boat with any new feature unless they know its not gonna get orphaned or going to cause spendability issues with certain merchants, which they prefer to spend the rewards on.

3. you may scream that coinbase might be segwit positive but what if the merchants/exchange/private investor they trade with prefers something else... think about that!! (do you even know what method a pool uses to get its fiat)

4. to highlight point one. pools have and will find the best ways to be efficient and within acceptable rules to get their blocks accepted. even if it means abstaining from a new rule change, even if it means starting a new 'empty block' while verifying a competitors solved block from a previous round.

5. i told you to get todays 'bonus' from users paying 2014 fee's would require an 8mb block. but as i have said for months pools dont see the fee's as a NEEDED income. its just a bonus. what is more important is getting their block accepted by the nodes first. because 12.5btc is more important than 1.5btc..

6. emphasising point 5 screwing around trying to get more than x fee's by increasing the risk of losing the 12.5+fee.. is like a walmart employee trying to screw $10 out of a cash register each month, risking losing $1k a month job... its just not logical to try being greedy

Quote from: tripplewarz on May 04, 2017, 06:54:23 PM

Experts in the world of cryptography have long come to the conclusion that the optimal block is 2 megabytes, although Chinese miners think in large volumes But as far as I know this will not happen.

core guessed and gave fake reasons for 2mb years ago
better experts now found 32mb can work, 8mb is the general world wide no issue acceptability..
core accepted 8mb was a good safe number
core/blockstream prefer 4mb to be extra cautious because they know their compact blocks might need to ask twice for data now and again
core/blockstream prefer 1mb base with fake reasons of 'but pools NEED their fee's'.

strangely core removed lots of CODE that allows for reasonable controlled fee's thus allowing the fee's to get so out of control.
yep even in low demand, gmaxwlls 'average fee' concept keeps fee up. its not as reactive to low demand to make the price drop when demand is low
core stopped acting like devs and more like economist/bankers screaming "just pay more". yet core/blockstream have shown lack of communication with pools to actually ask the questions. 'what should core/blockstream do to make pools and nodes mutually happy' (the community)

all blockstream have done is 'would buying you a plane ticket and a seat an an exclusive bildrburg close door meting buy you blockstreams vote into following blockstream'.. yet 65% of pools even when bribed with all inclusive weekends still abstain/say nay.. because pools can see the cludgy code of segwit