267 sats \ 3 replies \ @02bcd3eeb0 3 Apr \ on: Luke Dash Jr.: "Big blockers are back. Apparently with Bitcoin Core in support" bitcoin
The only reason to run a full node is if you are interacting with the base chain.
If a single interaction with the base chain costs more than setting up and running a full node for a year or two, then you don't really gain any decentralization benefit from keeping the current block size limit.
If/when base chain fees pass that threshold, increasing the block size, moving to side chains, or some other transaction scaling method will be inevitable.
If a single interaction with the base chain costs more than setting up and running a full node for a year or two
Actual interesting debate point.. I think anyone who calls it the "war" is already sensationally discrediting themselves. The intensity of the fork situation is only experienced by those who dox themselves for fiat on social media (and I guess by those who actually have to implement code on exchanges). Everyone else can actually chill, they don't even need an opinion, just run a node if you care. "War" is a CIA psyop.
reply
If a single interaction with the base chain costs more than setting up and running a full node for a year or two, then you don't really gain any decentralization benefit from keeping the current block size limit.
Excellent point! This would be a great metric to chart over time. tx vs full node opex.
Expanding block size would also increase full node opex while reducing tx cost (in theory). The wrinkle is that the lower tx cost may invite increased ordinals and inscriptions. The induced demand theory we see with highway expansion. Traffic only gets reduced temporarily as more cars fill up the space leading to the same or worse traffic congestion.
reply