I have a question for #bitcoin: Do you all think that Bitcoin would have been better off with a larger (or even a dynamic) block size?
Discussion
No, it's a network that depends on blocks being propagated quickly around the world. Temporarily increasing the block size permanently reduces Bitcoin's decentralization.
No. Every inch by which the blockchain's blocks are enlarged significantly undermines the network's decentralization. We wouldn't be able to run #Bitcoin nodes on a RasPi with a TB SSD.
nostr:npub1vfl7v8fgwxnv88u6n5t3pwsmzqg7xajclmtlfqncpaf2crefqr9qu2kruy and nostr:npub19utm2h58uxynuqx30w459f056cqnl8d6qywa25n6gecahd9klk7qq45rrk
Do you think that the higher TX fees are worth it?
Yes IMO. The resilience of the entire #Bitcoin system lies in its decentralization. The moment it reaches a point where you can't have a node in the hands of just anyone without significant investment, the network's security will be concentrated in a few hands and won't be as resilient. On the other hand, layer 1 is not designed for frequent transactions. If you need frequent transactions with low fees, there's layer 2 with LN (Lightning Network) and other applications that will undoubtedly emerge in the short term, or even, layer 3. Layer 1 should be reserved for long-term holding, it is the property settlement layer.
A good explanation of three #Bitcoin layers by nostr:npub15dqlghlewk84wz3pkqqvzl2w2w36f97g89ljds8x6c094nlu02vqjllm5m