4 ms·
>You can still amortize the cost of the block across its transactions Sure, if you're more interested in talking points then useful metrics. Increasing or decr
by Karunamon 4y ago
>You can still amortize the cost of the block across its transactions
Sure, if you're more interested in talking points then useful metrics. Increasing or decreasing the block size limit would lower or increase the "cost of a transaction" (since blocks are generated on a schedule commensurate with difficulty, which is roughly a function of how many miners there are) without actually changing the amount of power consumed.
What you're doing is basically correlating the world's average temperature versus the number of pirates and declaring that pirates are responsible for global warming. In reality, the two variables are unrelated and not even correlated.
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago> the block size limit would lower or increase the "cost of a transaction" Assuming constant transaction volume and other factors related to difficulty. You have a point. But it's far from a panacea for proof of work, and certainly not at the threshold to derail coming taxes and regulation. (Though one might find a way to structure the taxes such that they reward a productive increase in the block size.)
- expensive_news 4y agoAre you really arguing that the number of blocks and the number of transactions in BitCoin are two variables that are “unrelated and not even correlated“? Of course they’re related. It’s trivial.