Yeah 90% of everyone forgot that the 1mb limit was temporary & that the internet would get better Lmfao.

But no one cares and thinks we need more broken code to fix what wasn’t broken.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Is it really so simple ?

Yes

Who stands to gain the most my keeping the block size smaller, keeping the transaction fees higher?

Who stands to gain the most from complex transactions to open ln channels?

Who stands to gain the most from merged mining & sidechains?

What is their argument for keeping Block size smaller? Ive never understood this.

So people in poorer countries could run full nodes easier.

All three questions have the same answer.

Miners.

Which miners the ones who can’t afford to run at a loss.

Which miners are they?

The corporate company miners.

Why does this scare people?

Of course not. There are always tradeoffs. Small blocks = more blocks = more participation = greater decentralization. Larger blocks may also slow down settlement as generally smaller blocks means more frequent blocks.

Changing the block size has absolutely nothing to do with block time.

Smaller blocks doesn’t mean faster blocks times.

Bigger blocks doesn’t mean slower block times.

Right that's difficulty

Yes that’s what makes the adjustments to keep ~10 min blocks as hash rate changes.

This makes sense. There is a trade off. It’s not so simple.

You think that’s how things work?

I was more just trying to understand his point of view.

What is your opinion on the notion that block size increase is just kicking the can? Scheduled block size increases?

Dynamic block sizes

Go get Peter Todds job. Tell em to get sorted haha

Maybe I fucking will.

I knew my thread would inspire someone to take action. haha