pull down to refresh

100 sats \ 4 replies \ @Murch 10h \ parent \ on: Powerful arguments for the 'meaning' of Bitcoin - What is going on? bitcoin
PS: I'm not sure why Sjors is mentioning that removing the segwit discount is a hardfork. I'll have to dig a bit deeper to try and understand his p.o.v. better, right now I suspect it has to do with optimum economic usage of the blockspace always dictating that less functional space should be cheaper than more functional space - perhaps in ratio to their availability (?!?)
I don’t think that’s correct. It seems to me that counting witness data at a higher weight could be implemented as a soft fork.
write
preview
0 sats \ 3 replies \ @optimism 10h
That's what I thought too but now I'm doing the head scratching economic analysis of filling up the blocks with the most profitable template.
counting witness data at a higher weight
Technically, miners can ask whatever they want and try to extort higher fees on any arbitrary parameter, but that is the opposite of what we've seen happening since the removal of a default-configured minfee. I don't see miners doing this being likely, though as long as there is subsidy, it may be doable.
reply
114 sats \ 1 reply \ @028559d218 OP 10h
Hypothetical...
If ~ 4 years from now we get a halving, and Tx fees are still at 1-3 sats/vb and then another 4 years later at another 1-3 sats/vb... and another 4 years later we're still at 1-3 sats/vb with ~ 50% monkey jpegs + memecoins 'in blocks'...
Will Bitcoin fail? Is it on that path now?
reply
21 sats \ 0 replies \ @optimism 10h
Not if the amount of energy you can buy for the blockreward remains the same as it is now; as in sats/MW goes down similarly to the earnings, and there is no competitor for the same ASICs.
reply
100 sats \ 0 replies \ @Murch 10h
Just to be clear, I don’t support the idea, I merely think it could be done as a soft fork.
reply