Quote from: ComputerGenie on July 19, 2017, 03:23:39 PM

Quote from: dinofelis on July 19, 2017, 03:15:56 PM

Quote from: ComputerGenie on July 19, 2017, 02:58:47 PM

Quote from: dinofelis on July 19, 2017, 02:42:59 PM

...Satoshi simply *didn't know how to solve that* and *there is no solution for his problem* in the frame of the axioms he put forward. Maybe that's why he introduced the 1 MB limit. Because he didn't know how to solve his unsolvable problem.

Yeah, well, he also said:

Quote

It's only when you're sending a really huge transaction that the transaction fee ever comes into play...

So, there's that.... Roll Eyes

I don't know if and why he said that...

Well, technically, neither do I; however, as far as this board is concerned...

Quote from: satoshi on February 14, 2010, 06:28:03 AM

Quote from: theymos on February 12, 2010, 08:31:52 AM

Does the sending client send more BitCoins to account for the fee (so the recipient gets what he's expecting)?

Yes.

Quote from: SmokeTooMuch on February 12, 2010, 01:11:09 PM

why do we even need fees ? i thougt the no-fees-feature was one of the advantages of bitcoin ?!

Almost all transactions are free. A transaction is over the maximum size limit if it has to add up more than 500 of the largest payments you've received to make up the amount. A transaction over the size limit can still be sent if a small fee is added.

The average transaction, and anything up to 500 times bigger than average, is free.

It's only when you're sending a really huge transaction that the transaction fee ever comes into play, and even then it only works out to something like 0.002% of the amount. It's not money sucked out of the system, it just goes to other nodes. If you're sad about paying the fee, you could always turn the tables and run a node yourself and maybe someday rake in a 0.44 fee yourself.

Ok, so he said it, and he got that wrong. It is not the only thing that he got wrong, but then, it is always easy to criticise with hindsight. I think he didn't see the whole game-theoretical issue of the thing. Like he didn't realize that the "hashcash" BRAKE on sybilling was totally reversed and became a STIMULANT once you REMUNERATE PoW.

Mathematically, you take out the LINEAR cost of hash cash with sybilling by proportional compensation, and you are left with higher-order corrections which are actually working the wrong way (economies of scale).