Unfortunately for money to have store of value efficiency it must ultimately have value which with bitcoin rests again on its currency efficiency.
Miners could only store non dust UTXOs in easily accessible storage and ignore incoming txns that spend them unless the fee is worth the cost to look the UTXOs up. There are so many possibilities. Your problem is that you are a central planner even tho you dont know it -- you are forcing a particular solution (expensive limited txns) onto the network as a whole.
Miners could only store non dust UTXOs in easily accessible storage and ignore incoming txns that spend them unless the fee is worth the cost to look the UTXOs up. There are so many possibilities. Your problem is that you are a central planner even tho you dont know it -- you are forcing a particular solution (expensive limited txns) onto the network as a whole.
Gold's example disagrees with your assertion. Gold used to be an efficient currency, and is now a store of value. Bitcoin is, by design, following this path.
I am in no position to "force" anything onto the network has a whole, especially not a particular solution. You need to calm down and stop exaggerating.
Gold is unique and was the most efficient soln for thousands of years cementing its social perception of value. Bitcoin at 1mb is more like the iphone. It will be outcompeted in price (efficiency) before the majority of the world was even introduced to smartphones with the obvious result that the majority of phones are android.
Obviously I know you are not in a position to effect change. But my point is that if you were your decision to force a fee market is a centralized solution. Real markets evolve spontaneously and in a P2P manner to address real issues.
Gold is not unique. Silver. QED.
Why do you speak of "fee market" in the singular?
Do you not understand on- and off-chain fee markets will exist at Layers 1 and 2+, competing to be more efficient at bundling tx for eventual reconciliation with and inclusion into the Mother Blockchain?
You seem to, with the reference to the fact that "real markets evolve spontaneously and in a P2P manner to address real issues."
How does simply staying at 1MB (and rejecting the Red Queen interpretation) preclude such real markets' spontaneous evolution?
By what logic do you conflate a dearth of consensus for increased blocksize with "a centralized solution?"