⭐ Merited by Welsh (2)
--snip--
Also notice that if your proposal makes things cheaper for users, then miners have no incentive to use that and lower their profits. But if your proposal is more expensive than today, then miners of course could switch to that, but users will reject your nodes and use currently existing ones or just switch to LN and avoid your on-chain fees (or they simply won't create many channels with you if you want to force that inside LN). Either way, you need some arguments to convince someone who will be at a loss why the currently existing system should be changed to bring your proposal into reality.
Also notice that if your proposal makes things cheaper for users, then miners have no incentive to use that and lower their profits. But if your proposal is more expensive than today, then miners of course could switch to that, but users will reject your nodes and use currently existing ones or just switch to LN and avoid your on-chain fees (or they simply won't create many channels with you if you want to force that inside LN). Either way, you need some arguments to convince someone who will be at a loss why the currently existing system should be changed to bring your proposal into reality.
Absoluletly, I think 1% is affordable for most people (and cheaper than most other options like Visa). If you make large transactions then your avg fee will be less than 1% but if you make small transactions then your avg fee will be more than 1% which is not unfair considering the space you're using. Maybe collectively we'd be paying a little more or a little less, after all miners need to get paid to secure the network right?
--snip--
Ignoring the low-value transactions will cause the average transaction fee per byte to increase a bit on future transactions since there will be an increase in total transactions waiting to be confirmed. However, it reduces your total revenue on that particular block and gives your competitors (other solo miners and pools) the opportunity to increase their revenue faster than you since they can pick up those fees you left out.
Ignoring the low-value transactions will cause the average transaction fee per byte to increase a bit on future transactions since there will be an increase in total transactions waiting to be confirmed. However, it reduces your total revenue on that particular block and gives your competitors (other solo miners and pools) the opportunity to increase their revenue faster than you since they can pick up those fees you left out.
As I responded to Wind_FURY, I don't see what would be the incentive for a miner to play with the block size limit (assuming they have enough hashrate to do that);
If they increase the limit then the transactions fees will go down.
If they decrease the limit then the transactions fees will go up but they can validate fewer transactions.
In any case, they are not guaranteed a higher income and their competitors can still validate the next block, the transaction fees will sooner or later reach 1% no matter what is the volume of transactions on the network.