Quote from: stompix on Today at 09:54:55 AM

As I explained in the first post and multiple times in the topic, this is a comparison and refers to the period where there will be no more reward, making the miners live on from fees! Again and probably for the last time, it doesn't imply fees will be double, it simply says that in order to have the same level of security you will have to pay up! Simple, as that, you either pay or you agree to have a less secure network, there is nothing else about it, simple economics!

Even now, nobody is forcing you to pay a dime, If you want to get a fast transaction you pay more, in the future you want a secure network you will have to pay, you pay less, and you go down bitcoin gold style.

Why will paying lower fees result in a less secure network? It is not the fees that make the network more or less secure. The difference between being more or less safe is the number of different miners - the more there are, the safer.

It can be said that it is the high rates that will attract large and small miners. But I honestly don't agree. This is only valid in a short-term view.

I already gave an example of accounts:
a) 10x50$ = 500$/block
b) 2000x0.50$ = 1000$/block

Which is more advantageous for the network? I believe the second option is the best. It pleases both miners and users.

What we have to motivate is a greater circulation of BTC, not a greater increase in fees.

The more transactions there are, they do not need to have a high fee to be highly profitable. They will say that the increase in fees occurs because there are many transactions. In part, it may even be true. So I suggest dedicating a percentage of the block, so that older transactions are guaranteed to pass in a minimally reasonable time.