/biz/ - Business & Finance

We've had this debate for years, and it's cropping up again. I think we need to nip this in the bud now.

If you increase the blocksize then you will decrease fees, thus making it easier for Veriblock and Coinbase to spam the network and never bother to optimise their platforms. When VeriBlock temporarily paused their system, confirmed on-chain transactions dropped from ~325,000/day to ~225,000/day. That should give you a sense as to just how much spam is being caused by low fees.

If we go to 2MB, those companies will fill blocks up again. Fees will rise to the exact same level in a short period. Now you've got the same situation as before, except a whole lot of full node operators can't keep up with the bandwidth so turn their nodes off. Blocks will propagate through the network slower, centralising mining and providing an unfair advantage to the previous block winner.

The final point, which really should shut this whole discussion down, is that we've already been through this. Bcash exists. It had the same code base as bitcoin at the time of the split. If that's how you think Bitcoin should operate, then just use bcash and be done with it. LN can be built on top of bcash, it's just barely anyone wants to develop for it because overwhelmingly technical people understand why raising the blocksize is a bad idea.

If you're right, bcash will overtake Bitcoin and you can tell everyone I told you so. But you're not going to convince us to change the block size.

And for the love of Christ, if you're a non-technical investor, maybe consider a little humility before insulting the Core devs and demanding a solution you know nothing about to a problem which doesn't exist.