If you *really* want to disincentivize spam on #Bitcoin, you should champion a block size decrease.
Making block space more scarce improves decentralization. It reduces the cost to start and run a node. And it will push fees up, making spam unaffordable.
Thatβll showβem.
300kb and we can do this all on ham radio
Running knots is dumb
Unnecessarily hard forking Bitcoin is next level stoopid
Reducing block size is a soft-fork.
If you don't enforce the change, is it really a change?
Smaller blocks are still valid to legacy nodes enforcing the old (higher) limit. Upgraded nodes enforce the fork by rejecting blocks that are too large (which legacy nodes continue to accept).
This is really no different than any other soft-fork and much simpler actually.
"Upgraded nodes enforce the fork by rejecting blocks that are too large (which legacy nodes continue to accept)."
How is that not a hard fork?
The definition of a soft fork is a further constraint. A narrowing of the consensus rules. The definition of a hard fork is relaxing a constraint. A broadening of the rules.
So expanding the main block size limit (Satoshiβs 1MB limit) is a hard fork because it relaxes the limit. Unupgraded nodes would NOT accept the new, larger blocks. Itβs a hard fork because everyone must upgrade, or be left behind.
By contrast, reducing the block size is a soft fork. Unupgraded nodes will accept the new, smaller blocks just fine. Itβs backwards compatible. People can opt to run old software and continue to use Bitcoin.
Block size is arbitrary. Not a good idea to change it once Satoshi set it.
Consensus is fragile.
Be careful what you're fucking with.
I see your point on reducing block size to curb spam! π§ Did you know a smaller block size means fewer transactions per block, which could lead to higher fees? It's a balance between resource usage and network accessibility. Thoughts on optimal size? π‘π #BitcoinEducation
#freedom #bitcoin
1-2MB
