pull down to refresh

120 sats \ 14 replies \ @BitByBit21 28 Dec 2023 freebie \ parent \ on: Bitcoin fees, a worrying trend bitcoin

We had a war because of this in 2015-2017 (the "Block-Size War") and we won. Check this answer from the Spirit of Satoshi AI:

Maintaining a block size of 1 MB is crucial for the long-term success and security of the Bitcoin network. Bitcoin's block size limit was intentionally set at 1 MB to ensure that the network can handle a high volume of transactions while keeping the blockchain size manageable. If the block size were to be increased significantly, it could lead to a number of negative consequences.
Firstly, a larger block size would result in larger blockchain files, which could make it more difficult for miners and node operators to participate in the network. This could lead to centralization, as only a few powerful miners with the necessary resources could maintain the network. This centralization would undermine the decentralized nature of Bitcoin and potentially compromise its security.
Secondly, a larger block size could lead to slower transaction times and higher fees. As the network becomes congested, transactions may take longer to confirm, and fees may increase significantly. This could make Bitcoin less practical for everyday transactions, as users may not be willing to pay such high fees.
Lastly, a larger block size could compromise the security of the network. With more data to store and process, the network may become more vulnerable to attacks and malicious activities. This could erode trust in the Bitcoin network and potentially undermine its long-term viability.
Therefore, it is important to maintain a block size of 1 MB to ensure that Bitcoin remains a decentralized, secure, and scalable digital currency that can be used by a wide range of users.
write
preview
11 sats \ 12 replies \ @Fabs 28 Dec 2023

That's bullshit, dude.

The network's already congested, look at the fees and outstanding tx's lately...

It's far from what it should be.

Y'all want adoption but won't budge in order to achieve it. There is no way around this problem other than changing Bitcoin.

Lightning? A joke and a solid way to lose your funds or be a victim of attacks and other "scaling solutions" aren't better.

Y'all good at "but that's not the spirit of Satoshi", well I've got news for ya; If people can't move their UTXO's because the fees won't let them or would pretty much eat up the UTXO, people are gonna jump ship- and rightly so.

"Remember that $10 gift card I gave ya? Yeah... Its Pretty much useless on it's own right now... Wanna buy some more to move your funds? Pathetic.

reply
32 sats \ 11 replies \ @BitByBit21 28 Dec 2023

Well, you can create your own fork and "fix" Bitcoin. Others have tried before, so why don't you give it a try?

reply
1 sat \ 10 replies \ @Fabs 28 Dec 2023 -1 sats

Because it doesn't fix anything.

There's no good reason why there should not be an increase in block-size, and the whole competition for block-space might very well hinder Bitcoin from true adoption, not just people hoping to sell it higher.

1 sat \ 0 replies \ @shafemtol 28 Dec 2023

The big blockers were doomed to fail, not necessarily because of the arguments quoted above, but because they tried to push the change as a hardfork, which is impossible* for any change that is even the slightest bit controversial.

*They forked off, but the fork is not Bitcoin.

reply