In the ongoing scaling debate, I wonder why is the discussion focused solely on the block size.
To my understanding, decreasing the difficulty, either statically or dynamically, has the same effect, of increasing the transaction-confirmation rate.
I don't know if such a thing can be done with a soft work, but for those advocating a hard fork, why not a fork that decreases difficulty?
Can anyone enlighten me?
To my understanding, decreasing the difficulty, either statically or dynamically, has the same effect, of increasing the transaction-confirmation rate.
I don't know if such a thing can be done with a soft work, but for those advocating a hard fork, why not a fork that decreases difficulty?
Can anyone enlighten me?
Bitcoin Transaction Capacity could have been increased by a larger block size or a faster blockspeed.
Either would work.
BTC Core is blocking all improvements for 1 reason to push shitwit, and use LN to make BTC into an Offchain Fractional Reserve banking system.
Increasing transaction capacity would allow people to keep their transactions onchain, keeping the transaction capacity pathetic like it is now forces people to use their offchain fractional reserve bullshit. In Short BTC Core makes money by selling BTC out forever to the banking cartels.
So let's, for the sake of argument, assume Core has those malicious motives, and take them out of the picture.
Why is anyone else not proposing solutions based on faster blockspeed? Why don't we have a "BU" with a faster blockspeed, rather than larger block size?
because would lead to more orhpan, there is a reason if the block time on average is 10 min, actuallyi t's better to say 2016 every two weeks
and what you are proposing it's not feasible, it's based on miners decision, and the mining is done in a way that the more hash you have and the better which mean more diff
this is done to make the network stronger to some various attacks, having the diff low mean less hash, which mean more insecure network