...Peter R had his own transactions version. That seemed like it could work back in 2014. In both cases I believe we've seen at least 100% increases while the market cap has not quite followed.
I'm curious what both charts would look right about now but I'm afraid it would invalidate both theories. The reason might be that no one knows exactly how to quantify the amount of users in the network.
I'm curious what both charts would look right about now but I'm afraid it would invalidate both theories. The reason might be that no one knows exactly how to quantify the amount of users in the network.
Sure.
Brg444, what do you think of my last response to your comment about moving the block size limit out of the consensus layer?
How do you envisage this working? Can you give some more details? Presumably remove any block size limit altogether. Thus letting it be a scramble to cram as many transactions into the next block, as as time and internet speed would allow?
This would probably lead to a new dimension for mining profitability calculations (currently it's just electricity price arbitrage) We would also have connectivity arbitrage too?
I speculate the future of mining and validation will play out to the point it actually becomes non profitable. Meaning I see a possible scenario, whereby some combination of partial chain validation (think treechains) and massively distributed pooled mining ( think 21inc ).
In this scenario everybody has a mining chip in their device, (a bitcoin RAM equivalent) that partially validates the full chain. The sum of all theses mini nodes fully and provably validates the entire chain with a suitable redundancy. Further to this there would be archival nodes (the various pools, governments banks and big business).
This would mean the block size limit would be redundant, as only those organisations that were financially dependant on full independent blockchain analysis/validation would be required to keep the entire blockchain.
Thoughts ? Or am I barking up the wrong treechain?