Increasing the block size does make it more risky for spammers and more expensive when they don't hit their own blocks.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Increasing the block size does make it more risky for spammers and more expensive when they don't hit their own blocks.
bigger block sizes will lead to more centralisation as it becomes more expensive for nodes who get no rewards as it is. 1GB block size is not feasible even 8MB would lead to problems once the blocks become full as not many people can afford to download 1GB every day just to run a node. (8MB * 6 *24 = 1152mb per day)
If people make three sends a month... they are spending $120 a month!!!!!!
This buys a fuckton of computer power.
If you are making one Bitcoin transaction every 10 minutes then you are spending over $6,400 a day!
I'm saying Bitcoin should try 1.25 or 1.5.... 2 maybe.
you can't go from 1 to 1.25 that's not how binary works you can go from 1 - 2 - 4 - 8 - 16 -32 technically it's 1024 bytes to 2048
@bayareacoins
I agree with you on that, bitcoin core is far away from being the optimal solution, and bitcoincash, atm is behaving way better! But i fell that in the long run increasing the blocksize is not the solution, something else needs to be done!
Nodes do not get paid only miners get paid!
How are you calculating the fees exactly? the most I ever paid for one transaction was $10 although I did have to wait 12 hours
Why the downvote @the-ego-is-you?
Satoshi didn't intend for ordinary users to run full nodes. Miners would specialize in their field and regular users would not be forced to run anything.
The decentralization of the Bitcoin network was supposed to happen spontaneously and be encouraged by the use of capital incentives already included in the first version. This also necessitates keeping transactions on the main chain, which is likely why the specific term "decentralization" was never used in the white paper.
Aside from this, Mores law and an interest in developing better technology, if not directly for Bitcoin itself then for other industries, was expected to help with any limits to the scalability of the chain. With time, the security of the network will increase both in terms of hashing power and aligned interest.
If by some chance, for any reason, this still is not enough in the future it is of course always possible to fork again. But if venturing outside of what is properly called "Bitcoin: A peer to peer electronic cash system" and which fundamentals were detailed by Satoshi himself, it can no longer be called Bitcoin.