Quote from: stompix on Today at 10:37:02 AM

Quote from: BlackHatCoiner on May 20, 2024, 04:28:22 PM

Quote from: stompix on May 20, 2024, 04:17:37 PM

The same way Toyota does versus Ferrari, you sell 10 millions cars instead of 100, in bigger ~~batches~~..you know what I mean

If you increase the block size limit (which is what I presume you mean), you're destroying the fee market competition, and you're making less money as a miner. So, it's worse.

Then we should reduce the space to 10kb, allowing only $10k+ tx because buying coffee with bitcoin is pointless, right? Grin

To be honest I would love for the ones being against bigger blocks would make up their mind and form a group so they don't go against each other cause I keep hearing contrarian arguments

It's not a contrarian argument to suggest that a block size change (increase AND decrease) would initiate a hard fork/altcoin with unforeseen consequences.

I think it would have been better if Satoshi had implemented a gradual block size increase along with halvings every 4 years (there's a post of him about that), but now it's too late, Bitcoin parameters are ossified as much as IPv4's 32-bit limit.

I don't know why he didn't implement it... maybe he eventually thought it was a bad idea (due to fee market concerns), or maybe he didn't have enough time. We'll never know, but now we're stuck with what we have.

Quote from: stompix on Today at 10:37:02 AM

Every single thing in this world from air travel to superstores has become attractive because of scaling, driving prices cheaper, and making it more affordable for everyone driving more customers and revenue than you could do with a premium product

BTC is not a regular commodity.

It's not like wheat or oil where you can increase the production... most commodities don't have a supply cap.

If someone initiated a successful hard fork with a 21 billion BTC supply cap, then for sure it would become more affordable for the masses (everyone would be able to be a wholecoiner).

If the fee market alone is not enough to sustain the mining activity long-term wise (2140+), then you realize that the fixed 21 million BTC limit is not ideal, right?

Would you suggest a tail emission hard fork (like XMR did)?

Every BTC hard fork has a huge risk to split the community in half, you gotta realize that.

Quote from: stompix on Today at 11:13:26 AM

Yup just like Ford destroyed car manufacturing, like jumbo jets destroyed air travel, like huge chain hotels destroyed tourism and so on..

Cars/jumbo jets/hotel are not meant to be scarce, unlike Bitcoin ("boring grey metal").

Quote from: stompix on Today at 11:13:26 AM

It's just funny that no matter what no matter how many people use bitcoin, no matter how much they use it we should stick to this 1MB block because that will do it no matter what, good that the world population is not going up because I would envision 2500 with 200 billion people all competing to get their tx in the same 1 MB block.

LOL, the planet does not have enough resources to sustain 200 billion people (not to mention the CO2 emissions/climate agenda) and in case you meant space colonies in other planets, then Bitcoin would be pointless, since TCP/IP is a latency-intolerant protocol, so Bitcoin wouldn't work on an hypothetical interplanetary internet.

Mars like 20 minutes away in terms of light speed, so good luck syncing a blockchain with 10-minute block intervals. Grin

Quote from: BlackHatCoiner on Today at 12:10:35 PM

Quote from: stompix on Today at 11:13:26 AM

I've already said it, there is only one, and I am also all ears what do you think the solution would be?

Layer 2, with careful OP code activation through softforks. This could allow solutions such as sharing one UTXO with multiple users to be implemented.

If they achieve that, it would be akin to RFC 1918 (NAT) in IPv4 -> lots of computers sharing the same 32-bit address.