pull down to refresh

0 sats \ 11 replies \ @leaf 2 May \ on: JPEGS or no JPEGS... Bitcoin dies without Fee Pressure. THAT is the Truth bitcoin
  1. Reduce block size
  2. Fees go up 3a. Spam priced out of blocks - utxo set size growth greatly reduced 3b. L2 development put on steroids as demand for them increases
  3. ???
  4. Profit
write
preview
0 sats \ 10 replies \ @028559d218 OP 3 May
Would be great, except it's impossible to get consensus on changing the block size
reply
0 sats \ 9 replies \ @leaf 3 May
I know nothing about building consensus, but maybe a miner-led effort is possible. They have a financial incentive and I presume a big megaphone.
reply
0 sats \ 8 replies \ @SqNr65 3 May
They already tried that and failed catastrophically.
But yea, give it a shot. The more attacks on Bitcoin, especially this early, the better
reply
0 sats \ 7 replies \ @leaf 3 May
Some miners were proposing to increase the block size previously... It seems to me an effort to reduce block size might be met differently.
reply
10 sats \ 6 replies \ @SqNr65 3 May
I doubt it. I have no intention of changing the block size on my node and I suspect most node runners feel the same way.
It ain't broke, stop tryna fix it
reply
0 sats \ 5 replies \ @leaf 3 May
Running a node could be expensive in the future as the utxo set grows and if technological developments don't continue to reduce storage costs at the same rate. I think slowing the utxo set growth and creating a healthy fee market earlier to protect the network are strong arguments.
My impression is the current blocksize was set in a pretty arbitrary manner - maybe even haphazard. Spam will continue to inflate the utxo set until pictures of cats are priced out by fees. I'd prefer to hit that point sooner rather than later.
Anyway, it's probably not the worst problem bitcoin has. The fungibility issue seems worse to me.
view all 5 replies