1
As we all know, Bitcoin had experienced an unprecedented long-lasting congestion period in 2017. This seems quite horrible to some people generally, but it seems that such phenomenon was on the contrary considered as a positive sign by developers, for example:
Personally, I'm pulling out the champaign that market behaviour is indeed producing activity levels that can pay for security without inflation, and also producing fee paying backlogs needed to stabilize consensus progress as the subsidy declines.
I've heard that is about a strategy called "stable fee market"(might be inaccurate, sorry). So, I'm courious that does that mean the blocks should be kept full in order to keep Bitcoin safe? Is it merely a compensation of declining block subsidy? Is there any deeper reason behind?
Also, I wonder how could Replace-By-Fee take effects?
A stable-fee market implies that demand for tx confirmation is stable, which is impossible to control or predict. – James C. – 2019-01-11T20:28:33.510
One other caveat. There is no single global clearing price for block confirmation, because the mempool state differs from node to node. However, as data propagation efficiency across the network increases, the mempool states converge, and thereby so do tx confirmation clearing prices. – James C. – 2019-01-11T20:41:55.080
If the fee market has nothing to do with declining block subsidy, then what's point to keep such a market? Keep costs of running full node affordable for ordinary people? – Chris Chen – 2019-01-11T21:24:51.397
Not sure what u mean. Market is resolves which tx get confirmed. Subsidy is per block and independent of tx confirmation demand. – James C. – 2019-01-11T21:27:48.693
Why did Greg Maxwell mention block subsidy? To my understanding, he supposed that the high fees caused by congestion would compensate the declining block subsidy, thus the miners would still be incentivised to keep Bitcoin safe. – Chris Chen – 2019-01-11T21:39:30.047
1If there is no subsidy AND no tx confirmation demand, the chain stalls. Congestion is unavoidable if there is more demand than capacity. But this congestion is resolved in a market fee price. – James C. – 2019-01-11T21:56:54.743
According to my understanding of Greg's idea, the block size must be limited purposefully to generate "congestion", because such "congestion" would fix the problem of miner incentives after block subsidy declined. Despite whether raising block size has technical difficulty or not, it's "necessary evil". – Chris Chen – 2019-01-14T14:48:35.137