<div dir="auto"><div style="font-family:sans-serif" dir="auto">Raystonn, </div><div style="font-family:sans-serif" dir="auto"><br></div><div style="font-family:sans-serif" dir="auto">Your logic is very hard to dispute. An important special case is small miners.</div><div style="font-family:sans-serif" dir="auto"><br></div><div style="font-family:sans-serif" dir="auto">Small miners use pools exactly because they want smaller, more frequent payments.</div><div dir="auto" style="font-family:sans-serif"><br></div><div dir="auto" style="font-family:sans-serif">Rising fees force them to take payments less frequently, and will only tend to make more of them give up.</div><div dir="auto" style="font-family:sans-serif"><br></div><div dir="auto" style="font-family:sans-serif">With fees rising superlinearly, this centralizing effect is much stronger than the oft-cited worry of small miners joining large pools to decrease orphan rates.</div><br><div class="gmail_extra" dir="auto"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mar 29, 2017 15:01, "Raystonn . via bitcoin-dev" <<a href="mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution"><blockquote class="quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<div dir="auto">
<div>Low node costs are a good goal for nodes that handle transactions the node operator can afford. Nobody is going to run a node for a network they do not use for their own transactions. If transactions have fees that prohibit use for most economic activity,
that means node count will drop until nodes are generally run by those who settle large amounts. That is very centralizing.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">Raystonn</div>
<div dir="auto">
<div class="gmail_extra" dir="auto"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote"><div class="elided-text">On 29 Mar 2017 12:14 p.m., Jared Lee Richardson via bitcoin-dev <<a href="mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target="_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.<wbr>linuxfoundation.org</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution">
</div><blockquote class="m_4164360079803354099quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div><div class="elided-text">
<div dir="ltr">In order for any blocksize increase to be agreed upon, more consensus is needed. The proportion of users believing no blocksize increases are needed is larger than the hardfork target core wants(95% consensus). The proportion of users believing
in microtransactions for all is also larger than 5%, and both of those groups may be larger than 10% respectively. I don't think either the Big-blocks faction nor the low-node-costs faction have even a simple majority of support. Getting consensus is going
to be a big mess, but it is critical that it is done.</div>
</div><div><br>
<div class="m_4164360079803354099elided-text"><div class="elided-text"><br><br></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div></div></div>