5 ms·
Some of the blocks appear larger on Bitcoin Cash even though they have a lower transaction count because they contain transactions that are consolidating unspen
by r1ch 9y ago
Some of the blocks appear larger on Bitcoin Cash even though they have a lower transaction count because they contain transactions that are consolidating unspent outputs (example: https://blockchair.com/bitcoin-cash/transaction/5254e22a6a5fc63f0dc171fbee250644d5b9db998b75e810378a2ec1e9ab930c https://blockchair.com/bitcoin-cash/transaction/5254e22a6a5f...).
These kinds of transactions aren't feasible on the Bitcoin chain since the fees are prohibitive, so all those small unspent outputs remain in the UTXO set forever and are essentially unspendable.
I'd also argue that increasing the block size scales fine as long as network speeds and storage continue to scale as they have been over the past years.
- Frogolocalypse 9y agoI get it. You want litecoin. It has been around for years.
- paulmd 9y agoThe inability to clear dust on Bitcoin is a serious problem. It's fragmentation, for your money, that makes it impossible to spend (given the current fee structure, which has been defined as "normal" now that Bitcoin is "digital gold" rather than a transmission network). It's like every time you buy something, the change just disappears, and once a week you have to spend another $20 to sweep it up. This is not how currency is supposed to work, and it's been retconned as somehow being a good thing. Don't hate on me for stating the obvious here. Whatever happened to the "no fees" that advocates like Marc Andreesen were promoting circa-2014? https://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/01/21/why-bitcoin-matters/ https://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/01/21/why-bitcoin-matters/ (yeah, obviously false given the transaction fees paid to miners that have since become prominent when the blocks filled up)