Nostr Web Client

I think that’s flawed logic to say blocksize needs to be scare because there’s a limited nobler of coins.

The block reward was supposed to subsidize miners till price was higher with more transactions & then fees would take over.

I’m fairly confident that miners are trying to control the fee market so they maker more money.

L2 & up can’t scale if L1 doesn’t scale.

It’s worthless because of the war.

Jijo Bose 2y ago

Even if BTC increased the block-size, it would be filled with Ordinal (inscriptions) that is currently taking max up to 4MB in a single transaction.

Taproot has it's own pros and cons.

In BCH, the maximum size for a single transaction is still 1MB, keeping the block-size at 32MB

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

kidwarp 2y ago

Agreed but at least with a bigger block size we could in theory handle more transactions on chain thus hypothetically keeping transactions cheaper while opening the possibility for even bigger transactions?

I mean bitvm is going to cost a fuck ton to use on chain. I would assume that will get moved to the LN to be cost effective?

Jijo Bose 2y ago

Yes you’re right, they should consider increasing block size.

Or maybe have an Adjustable block-size depending on the traffic in the Mempool.

kidwarp 2y ago

Yes a dynamic block size would probably be the best idea.

(Would still probably have to limit from huge blocks ie scale that with bandwidth limits. We don’t want gb sized blocks yet right lmfao.)