Transaction

j"1LAnZuoQdcKCkpDBKQMCgziGMoPC4VQUckMò<div class="post"><div class="quoteheader"><a href="https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=813.msg9243#msg9243">Quote from: gebler on August 14, 2010, 07:30:43 PM</a></div><div class="quote"><div class="quoteheader"><a href="https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=813.msg9223#msg9223">Quote from: lachesis on August 14, 2010, 05:38:45 PM</a></div><div class="quote">The problem with your analysis is that you assume that all for-profit minters will have the same profit margin. They won't. Among other things, larger minters will have economies of scale in their favour, making them more profitable.<br/></div><br/>Actually, I was not assuming that.&nbsp; In the scenario, the profit margin of 10% was the typical profit margin, by which I meant that most of the minting was done by players with a profit margin around 10%.&nbsp; The scenario assumed the fluctuation in minting activity to be 20%, so it allows quite a lot of variance around the 10% mean without affecting the outcome as long as the bulk is within the 0%-20% interval (and the bulk cannot very well be <i>above</i> 20% - then the typical profit margin would not be 10%).<br/><br/>Regarding the effect of transaction fees, they may alleviate the problem somewhat, but at an unnecessary cost.&nbsp; There will be some balance between monetary costs and convenience costs, but avoiding the costs altogether seems preferable to me.<br/></div><br/>What if I had a factory and hired you as a consultant? Would you tell me avoiding costs altogether was the best thing? Many, many costs are worth it.<br/><br/>Having a secure, open, P2P, pseudonymous, limited quantity money, is worth a ton. People who agree will pay the .001BTC or whatever to make a transaction if that's about what it ends up costing.&nbsp; </div> text/html