Quote from: DooMAD on Today at 03:53:59 PM

Quote from: hv_ on Today at 02:51:31 PM

Quote from: DooMAD on Today at 01:23:10 PM

You're welcome to that opinion. If you can find users who agree with that stance, you're free to form and secure a different blockchain with them (and clearly you already have). But that doesnt appear to be the stance of the users who are securing Bitcoin's network. And, since they're the ones paying the cost, it's their choice. You aren't in a position to force your ideals upon them.

That's how network governance functions. If you want to change the rules to offer lower fees, find the people who agree with you and go ahead. Just don't expect others to tag along. You also have to accept the consequences of your ideals when they invariably result in a weaker and more centralised network.

More centralized - whatever that means - is what the profit in Bitcoin just drives and emerges from, even with small blocks or whatever protocol changes , it cannot be countered / mitigated ever

It means, like many things in life, if you buy cheap, you often get cheap in terms of quality. Sure, you might pay lower fees, but there's a greater risk of hashrate attacks due to the weaker security, weaker network governance, meaning controversial changes to the protocol could slip through more easily because there are fewer nodes to convince, more chance of people losing faith in your weaker chain and diminishing the value of your funds. If your coin is repeatedly attacked and the value goes to zero, just remember that's what you signed up for because you thought it would save you on fees.

in a world of big open known registered competing mining corps - there is no successful attacking anymore

they ensure system is running for the globe at lowest fees to be max attractive

that's what I ve signed for