Quote from: Wind_FURY on May 10, 2019, 07:24:10 AM

Quote from: Khaos77 on May 09, 2019, 03:45:58 PM

Quote from: franky1 on May 08, 2019, 03:22:26 AM

Quote from: BitUsher on May 08, 2019, 12:50:01 AM

The paper specifically discusses miners creating set minimum fee per tx and why that cannot work , a point you keep ignoring

well you go treat that paper as your bible, and ill use my own research and stats and experience as the formation of what i will continue to go by.

by the way, that paper has lots of if's and assumptions too. so take it with a grain of salt.
just because someone puts a fancy title page and calls it a 'paper' doesnt mean its well researched

transactions having a fee does not guarantee acceptance in a block
transactions having a fee+x does not guarantee acceptance in a block before a transaction thats just fee-x
pools are free to choose a transaction to include for any reason they please. so fe's and blocksize are not things the network should mess with because it doesnt help/coerce a pool into doing what a network wants.

again a pool could develop its own fee rationale and cause users to adapt.
EG pools could stop accepting segwit transactions unless they pay the same price a legacy tx pays
EG pools could stop accepting legacy transactions priced at a 4x segwit comparative and only accept legacy tx's with cheap fees at a 1:1 comparative

pools can decide to ignore certain transaction formats like LN CLTV's

you and your papers assumptions that pools automatically will grab the highest tx and aim to fill blocks is the biggest empty assumption of all

Funny , people always seem to forget the miners control the fees structure.
Miners could raise the price of transacting in segwit alone,
so it compensated them for the lost transactions revenue stolen by LN from the normal onchain fees.
That would be some cosmic humor. Cheesy

How? By flooding the mempool? Cool

Damn , how can you be that stupid.

Miners inserts transactions into a block based of accepting the included fees.
All they have to do is refuse segwit transactions if the paid fee is too low. Tongue

Quote from: Wind_FURY on May 10, 2019, 07:24:10 AM

Quote

LN offchain fees would be higher than BTC onchain fees in such a scenario.

Flaws created by using a soft fork instead of a hard fork. Tongue

Cough Cough, I mean Features. Cheesy

That doesn't make sense. In that "scenario", blocks would be empty, and Lightning would be in-demand to its maximum limit.

Geez, go read a book, you know nothing.

If the Miners drive the price of segwit transaction fees say 200X what a normal onchain transaction cost,
then even if LN hub prices are zero, normal onchain transactions will be 200X cheaper than a segwit transaction.
And users will use onchain for the cheaper fees instead of LN.

Quote from: Wind_FURY on May 10, 2019, 07:24:10 AM

Quote

FYI:
So as a miner, I know a segwit address allows say 200 extra transactions offchain in LN,
so I automatically charge 200X more for segwit transactions than a normal transaction to compensate.
Well, I bet no one saw that one coming. Wink

You assume ALL miners will be cooperating together to undermine the system. But if that happens, then Bitcoin has failed.

1. It would be in All of the miners best interests since they will be in direct competition with LN.
2. It only takes the Top 3 mining pools to make it happen. Cheesy