pull down to refresh

Thanks! I'm currently not in a position where I would want a blocksize increase, and I might never be. I wasn't involved in the Blocksize war, bitcoin was only a means to an end for me then. It's definitely a last resort kind of thing imo, I'd much rather try most other forms of scaling first. And I do believe total network fees do need to be high, but individual user fees do not.
Total network fees high and individual low means higher volume of txs. All scaling solutions suffer if onchain fees are too high. There is no magic. Also with each new soft fork you increase complexity and new unintended consequences and attack vectors. The blocksize war was not about the size of the block, it was about control over the network. Either way I don't worry too much because if bitcoin gets to a point where fees are constantly high and pricing out everyone and making most utxos dust, even the ones against it now will ask for it.
reply
21 sats \ 0 replies \ @Fabs 21 Feb
Yep, you've hit the nail on the head again.
reply
I do agree that it will probably require higher fees for longer for a real change to happen. One thing I would say though is that the blocksize war seemed to end with the majority of people realising we would scale in layers and not by increasing the Blocksize. We got lightning yes, but it is not the final solution as I said in the post. We need new ways to create and improve L2s in a trust minimised way.
reply