pull down to refresh
0 sats \ 4 replies \ @LigerLite OP 8 Dec 2022 \ parent \ on: Real Reason for not Increasing Blocksize is Blockstream? bitcoin
Were not talking about BSV here.... its totally besides the point.
I think forks of Bitcoin that have changed the block size are a great opportunity to see how game theory plays out with blocksize altered.
An interesting thing for you to look into is the tx/seconds of Bitcoin Cash. With a 8MB blocksize, they can get 116 tx/second. Far more than Bitcoin Cash needs, but still nowhere enough for Bitcoin. A second layer would still be necessary.
What I am suggesting is, if a 2nd layer is still needed anyway to scale, why increase costs for running a node? When doubling blocksize was suggested, (a hard fork, which is highly avoided,) they knew that it would be a temporary solution. Not only one hard fork, but multiple? Not worth it, when Lightning would still be necessary.
Btw. LN routing is horrible way at making money. Blockstream doesn't run any of the largest nodes. (They are however involved in mining on the base layer) There are 4 LN implementations. Blockstream's Core Lightning is 7% of Lightning Nodes. 7%. Blockstream has not even put out a wallet that supports Lightning.
reply
Look im not saying it should be 8MB, but even going for 2MB blocks, would be significant way to onboard more users. LN is never going to have same level of security and decentralization akin to the mainnet, in that sense its antithesis of the what bitcoin ought to be according to whitepaper.
reply
Read about Segwit. It actually increased the block size to 2 MB (to a theoretical max 4MB) as you suggested.
reply
broken link,
reply