Can someone please tell me why this is not an option or why its not being implemented.

In the philippines 10 cents is 4.6 pesos, the average low end salary is 1500 pesos per week. That means just 20 transactions per week is 6-7% of your weekly salary.

Fees are too high to sustain adoption of 5 billion underbanked working poor around the world.

So we know this:

1) it is beneficial to create solutions to increase space in a block (segwit/thin blocks/ LN etc)

2) it is beneficial to have a block size limit (and transaction fees) to prevent sustained large scale ddos style attacks on the network.

3) it is beneficial for global adoption for those fees to be as small as possible to promote inclusion for all people around the world. Also I doubt the average person would pay 10 cents to move money from his bed side table to his pocket (akin to moving money from cold storage to hot wallet)

Why is this not a viable solution:

Create segwit / thin blocks / LN etc to help more transactions fit in 1 block.

At the same time implement a solutuion that says the blocksize limit is always 20% higher than the average block size over the last 5000 blocks (roughly 1 month), this will prevent sustained ddos style attacks and allow low fees on the network.

These two solutions combined will work together to keep the blocksize as low as possible (seg wit and other solutions will reduce the average blocksize over time) while allowing low fees on the network and also preventing large scale ddos style attacks on the network.

Why is this not viable??

Edit: as a note it is my belief that the price of bitcoin will always be high enough to incentivise miners with the block reward, even if that reward is less than 1 btc every 10 minutes. If you dont believe this then you also dont believe in the long term success of bitcoin.

Logic: The reduction in supply (halving) actually causes the price to rise which maintains the incentive and therefore level of security.. the price is driven by supply and demand. Supply reduction inturn increases the price which maintains a level of reward value that maintains the same level of security as before the halving, if not more! Did the hashrate fall after the last halving? No it is now orders of magnitude higher than it was before the last halving. Even with a wall on asic development a halving would not reduce the hash rate long term (the price has already doubled just in anticipation of the halving).

Also in 140 years when the miners will be relying on fees the number of transactions due to a global population of users will be more than enough to incentivise miners (and as the population increases so does the number of users and transactions and therefore the amount of fees).

Submitted June 25, 2016 at 08:45PM by slvbtc http://bit.ly/28YIf2l