Main point is on the goldilocks slide.
Demand fluctuates due to a wide variety of factors. If supply is static then the likelihood that the supply is optimal at any given point becomes quite low.
If cost of block space is too low, it has centralizing effects / makes thermodynamic security unsustainable.
If cost of block space is too high, it also has centralizing effects / pushes users to trusted third parties or other networks.
This sort of self correcting mechanism is elegant and appealing.
Seems like the difficulty adjustment.
This is an argument against the bitcoin supply cap as well. Which for some reason everyone gets is fallacious.
Good point Jack.
What’s wrong with the code being a static cosmological constant?
Why can’t it simply be “it is what it is”?
Wouldn’t the ecosystem adapt to the parameters?
That is precisely what an economy does. Limitations of scarcity drive people to organize the resources most efficiently. Blocksize is no different. Humans often drive toward the power in numbers model because of evolutionary survival strategies. But, in this case decentralization mitigates the biggest threat, a single point of failure, I.E. Mining pools. Block template and self administered mining is the best bulwark against this. Even at the institutional level.
Has low cost of block space really resulted in a security risk? I get that security is not maximized in this co text, but maybe it’s optimized?
Is it really a problem for Bitcoin to be a premium network for the most important transactions? Why does it have to be the network for all transactions?
