I really wonder about point number 2. Perhaps it is a way to market a quantum resistant upgrade, but it seems short-sighted to fix the security budget problem (if there is one, I'm still on the fence about this) by making transactions bigger.
I think bitcoin should aim for the maximum throughput of transactions constrained only by security and ease of ability to run a node. if there's "too much" blockspace and miners aren't making enough, that seems to be a sign of weak interest in Bitcoin. I don't think that gets fixed by making transactions bigger.
Besides, the trend seems to be that quantum resistant signatures are getting smaller. I don't doubt that by the time we actually implement something like that in Bitcoin, they will be much smaller than the current size.
I really wonder about point number 2. Perhaps it is a way to market a quantum resistant upgrade, but it seems short-sighted to fix the security budget problem (if there is one, I'm still on the fence about this) by making transactions bigger.
I think bitcoin should aim for the maximum throughput of transactions constrained only by security and ease of ability to run a node. if there's "too much" blockspace and miners aren't making enough, that seems to be a sign of weak interest in Bitcoin. I don't think that gets fixed by making transactions bigger.
Besides, the trend seems to be that quantum resistant signatures are getting smaller. I don't doubt that by the time we actually implement something like that in Bitcoin, they will be much smaller than the current size.
For instance, I saw this from @lightcoin
source