Quote from: franky1 on March 24, 2014, 10:42:25 PM

Quote from: 12648430 on March 24, 2014, 10:34:41 PM

You don't seem to have considered the economics of mining at all. With current rewards and fees, the orphan risk of including a transaction in a block far outweighs the fee, so we're relying on miners including transactions in blocks out of altruism. Some miners don't include any transactions in their blocks, and they make slightly more money on average. Paying no fees at all would further incentivize such behavior, jeopardizing the survival of the entire economy.

economics of mining should be, if the 25btc is being shared out too thinly.. dont sell it cheap and demand to be subsidized (with fee's)

instead, if miners stopped selling so cheap, the price would rise and they could then sell at higher prices to pay their electric bills.

but no the greedy impatient miners prefer to demand subsidies instead. causing higher transaction costs and lower bitcoin value..

The fees are nothing to do with mining or the economics of mining.

They were added to make it expensive for someone to attack the network with spam.

See:

https://gist.github.com/gavinandresen/2961409

Quote

If transactions are free, is cheap and easy to create tens of thousands of transactions- just send bitcoins to yourself over and over. Transaction spam like this is prevented using the priority metric-- because input age is a limited resource, the would-be spammer quickly uses it up and runs out of "aged" inputs to spend.

Legitimate users who might want to receive and then quickly spend bitcoin can still do so, they just have to pay a transaction fee.

The current rules for including transactions in the memory pool are working reasonably well, but to plan for the future the currently-hard-coded "free" and "low-priority" constants in the reference software will be replaced with variables that miners or users can change.