pull down to refresh

0 sats \ 4 replies \ @ek 25 Jul \ parent \ on: The Tail Emission Attack On Bitcoin - This is not a negotiation bitcoin
One way to resolve this scenario is to increase block size as transaction demand increases, this fits more transactions on the same block thus nullifying the increase in fees assuming the size increase is proportional to transaction demand increase.
are you familiar with the common arguments against block size increase?
write
preview
100 sats \ 3 replies \ @anon 25 Jul
Yes, I wish that each block could fit infinite transactions in 1 byte but since we're space limited we must weigh tradeoffs.
I'm more in favor of a dynamic block size similar to Monero, this can be tuned to adapt to spikes in demand and balance blockchain size and fee cost adaptively.
I'm always open to superior solutions, though, if you know of any I'd love to hear them.
reply
0 sats \ 2 replies \ @ek 25 Jul
I'm more in favor of a dynamic block size similar to Monero, this can be tuned to adapt to spikes in demand and balance blockchain size and fee cost adaptively.
how does a dynamic block size have better trade-offs than increasing the maximum block size?
I'm always open to superior solutions, though, if you know of any I'd love to hear them.
I don't
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @anon 25 Jul
When transaction demand is low, block size is lower thus saving space. When demand is high it can increase the block size greater than average temporarily, stabilizing price at the expense of space.
I'm far from an expert this is my very crude understanding
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @ek 25 Jul
When transaction demand is low, block size is lower thus saving space
This is already the case
When demand is high it can increase the block size greater than average temporarily, stabilizing price at the expense of space.
This would make running a full node for individuals even harder because it's less predictable when you need additional storage. If there's still an upper limit to block size, then I don't understand what the difference is between what we have now and "dynamic block size."
stabilizing price at the expense of space.
expense of space → expense of individuals running a full node to verify their transactions
A bigger block size also increases the risk of orphaned blocks because it takes more time to broadcast them. This makes selfish mining easier, increasing mining centralization.
A block size increase also only helps against fee pressure in a linear way and temporary way: 10x block size → 10x lower fees, until transaction demand rises again.
Since I don't think we expect transaction demand to grow linearly over time, you'd have to increase the block size by many magnitudes to solve the problem you're trying to solve with it, so I think this is a lost cause because of all the trade-offs you will run into. It would sacrifice almost everything that is good about bitcoin just to have short-term lower fees.
reply