Quote from: porqupine on March 27, 2014, 09:17:46 PM

Quote from: xnova on March 27, 2014, 09:05:36 PM

Quote from: porqupine on March 27, 2014, 08:57:28 PM

I think you are making great points. Only I still can't find any esteem for the 'implicit' and 'social contract' arguments - if extra data storage is bad - then why not charge extra fees for OP_return proportional to their burden on the network - there is no absolutely no conclusive logic behind 'these types of transactions are part of the social contract' 'these types of transactions are not' - it's just political posturing - it's like if someone came out to tell people that the Internet was designed for X and not for Y: ergo should not be used for Y.
If his Freimarkets proposal is better than Counterparty, than he can implement it and market forces will decide which is better.

The problem is that Bitcoin's current fee model is definitely "less-than-ideal". It is both static (i.e. non adaptive) and does not compensate full node operators who store the data. This whole debate, I suspect, is a consequence of that. The model can be adjusted, and there has been copious amounts of talk on doing that, but to the credit of the core devs, it's quite hard to change a flat tire on a 2 ton dump truck going down the road at 70 miles an hour. Cheesy

Full Nodes have never received any fees - and it's been okay all this time - but then you add .003% more Data and it's abuse? Besides that I think Counterparty users are the straight up largest percent wise group of Full Node operators Wink

Take this analogy - you have a highway whose maintenance is paid for by toll fees, and a logging company's trucks cause more wear to the highway surface than your average passenger vehicle - but instead of saying, hey let's do an analysis of how much more wear the logging trucks are causing and charge them higher fees accordingly - they are saying those trucks are evil and hurting all other car owners. Isn't there a problem with this mentality?
Sure your average toll paying driver does not need the 'logging trucks', but they are in fact, perhaps essential to the state's economical development in a very important sector. It's economically backward minded - sure that can change with time and I think it will; I just have a problem with libertarians turning free-market economics into 'social ideology that ought to be good enough for everyone' as soon as it violates their favorite order of things.

That's a very good analogy porqupine and accurately reflects our predicament.