4 ms·
Ok. We'll just ignore the issues associated with increasing full-node storage requirements even faster than they're already increasing. And lower transaction f
by _tulpa 9y ago
Ok.
We'll just ignore the issues associated with increasing full-node storage requirements even faster than they're already increasing. And lower transaction fees lead to lower block rewards which lowers mining profitability. Both of these things result in more centralization.
While we're at it we'll forget the post-fork difficulty adjustment faisco brought to us by the Bitcoin cash devs. We'll just trust their competancy and good will.
Also we won't think about the legitimate off-chain solutions for transaction rate scaling, or how the side-chain concept dates back to early Satoshi emails.
There are better alt coins for cheap and fast transactions. Besides, recommending something based entirely on those two factors is a massive oversimplification.
- sgspace 9y agoLower transaction fees leads to more volume of transactions. They’re going for the amazon approach of razor thin margins which should lead to more transactions overall. They plan to keep transaction fees around 1 penny by increasing the block size as it fills up. Next fork for Bitcoin Cash will give it 32mb blocks.
- _tulpa 9y agoYeah I realise that. Even if it does work (noting currently most BCH blocks are tiny) then the chain will grow by ~135Gb per month (the entire Bitcoin chain is ~145Gb). Running a full node means you now have to buy a hard-drive (or two) and hope your internet connection isn't capped. You also have to be OK with really slow block propagation (which you really shouldn't be). There are some very good reasons for small blocks and higher on-chain transaction fees.