3 ms·

Yes. This is what the whole blocksize controversy is about. Miners want 1MB blocks because it allows them to collect additional fees more quickly. Companies tha

Yes. This is what the whole blocksize controversy is about. Miners want 1MB blocks because it allows them to collect additional fees more quickly. Companies that depend on Bitcoin's hypergrowth as a transaction platform want to bump the blocksize because they want to keep fees minimal so that adoption stays high. These are the two competing interests. Most people want blocksize increased, relieving competition for miner time and thus requiring smaller fees per tx. However, Bitcoin's design failed to anticipate that hashpower would become so centralized and that so few bitcoin users would be contributing hashpower. Essentially, this means that a handful of miners that have secret, proprietary hardware control the fate of the network and that average users have very little representation, even if they're wasting their own compute trying to chip in as a miner. At some point, the network will stop awarding new coins to miners as blocks are found. Then the only incentive miners will have is transaction fees. That's scheduled for something like 2021 or 2022. This blocksize controversy is a good preview of what we'll see when that happens.

schmichael 11y ago
> Miners want 1MB blocks because it allows them to collect additional fees more quickly. I'd be interested in a source on this. It seems like more transactions with smaller fees could be just as valuable as fewer transactions with higher fees to miners. Miners also get to choose which transactions to include in a block, so even if there are nodes which accept 2 MB blocks miners can choose to only include the most valuable transactions and influence the fee market that way.
- cookiecaper 11y ago
  >I'd be interested in a source on this. I don't have a source. It'd obviously be against the political interests of the mining cabal to admit this so frankly. This is my opinion on what the statements of anti-BitcoinXT/BIP101 people actually mean. >It seems like more transactions with smaller fees could be just as valuable as fewer transactions with higher fees to miners. Since the transaction volume on the network is now exceeding what can be included in a 1MB block, some transactions have to be left out. Miners prioritize txs with higher fees attached. This creates the incentive for people to include larger tx fees so that their tx is more likely to be included in the next block. If the blocksize is increased and more txs are processed but each tx continues to have just a token tx fee, then no, they don't make more money. There is little reason to include a non-nominal tx fee if the network's volume doesn't exceed the blocksize (at least not until the network stops awarding new coins). Keeping the blocksize artificially small constrains the availability of miner time, thus requiring users to pay more to get access to it.

schmichael 11y ago

> Miners want 1MB blocks because it allows them to collect additional fees more quickly. I'd be interested in a source on this. It seems like more transactions with smaller fees could be just as valuable as fewer transactions with higher fees to miners. Miners also get to choose which transactions to include in a block, so even if there are nodes which accept 2 MB blocks miners can choose to only include the most valuable transactions and influence the fee market that way.

cookiecaper 11y ago
>I'd be interested in a source on this. I don't have a source. It'd obviously be against the political interests of the mining cabal to admit this so frankly. This is my opinion on what the statements of anti-BitcoinXT/BIP101 people actually mean. >It seems like more transactions with smaller fees could be just as valuable as fewer transactions with higher fees to miners. Since the transaction volume on the network is now exceeding what can be included in a 1MB block, some transactions have to be left out. Miners prioritize txs with higher fees attached. This creates the incentive for people to include larger tx fees so that their tx is more likely to be included in the next block. If the blocksize is increased and more txs are processed but each tx continues to have just a token tx fee, then no, they don't make more money. There is little reason to include a non-nominal tx fee if the network's volume doesn't exceed the blocksize (at least not until the network stops awarding new coins). Keeping the blocksize artificially small constrains the availability of miner time, thus requiring users to pay more to get access to it.