First principles thinking would have you consider both extremes. What about a 1GB block size? What about a 1KB blocksize? Probably neither of those would be acceptable, so how do we arrive at the appropriate limit? To me it seems the limit should be variable and based upon a reasonable hardware capacity such that nodes can still be run worldwide, but where transactions remain affordable for all. The current limit is too low imo and unnecessarily punishes economic activity on-chain to ensure nodes can be run on hardware that practically nobody uses.

or

As Luke DashJr has previously suggested, *reduce* the blocksize to 300k thereby increasing scarcity for blockspace which would consequently drive L1 fees higher, and reduce/extend low cost operation of bitcoin nodes.

btcschellingpt

There are two ways for total fee security to increase:

1. Number of on-chain users remains fixed, but they pay higher fees per transaction.

or

2. Number of on-chain users increases and they pay the same or less per transaction.

Both options create more security for the network, but one cripples the chain to actual real-world use.

theshanergy

bitcoin

Upvote if you believe Bitcoin should scale on-chain in addition to second layer solutions

Here's my 2 sats.

Fast forward two halvings.  Block rewards are 75% lower.

Fees or price has to climb materially from current levels for Bitcoin to be as secure as is today.  If block space isn't scarce, fees won't climb.  If we don't have enough fees, then Bitcoin can be hacked if the price is low.