3 ms·

yes, blocks are and were periodically empty if you expected applications to be deployed that would take up block space when used, and were going to build those

yes, blocks are and were periodically empty if you expected applications to be deployed that would take up block space when used, and were going to build those applications yourself, then it was still rational in 2012 people were describing smart contracts, joint custody accounts to secure assets better, and many other applications that are commonplace and have their own critique and discussion now its like seeing an island full of resources and realizing that the bridges and ferry routes haven't been built yet. that 1) you can get to that island yourself before everyone else 2) you can also build the bridge and put up a toll booth 3) other bridges will be built 4) and other people can also come to the island early at great difficulty too the same play is still true on other blockchains, and sometimes back again on bitcoin I’ve done the trade many times over the past 15 years

greyface- 1y ago
Today, when blocks are empty, you're paying 1 sat/vB. Back then, when blocks were empty, you paid zero. That's the difference between "all about blockspace" and "only about blockspace when you care about next-block latency". Here's a 2010 Satoshi post in a thread about transaction fees stating "we should always allow at least some free transactions": https://satoshi.nakamotoinstitute.org/posts/bitcointalk/threads/213/#5 https://satoshi.nakamotoinstitute.org/posts/bitcointalk/thre... If you had said "2 dollars" instead of "2 cents", we would be in complete agreement. All I'm saying is that mandatory transaction fees were not baked in at 2 cents.
- yieldcrv 1y ago
  and all I’m saying is that it didn’t matter for a bullish thesis whether this is just a nitpick fyi or a nuance you really care about the only thing that mattered was the malleability of the system to meet its goal of attracting transactions, including the future malleability of what you are pointing out. blockspace became scarce. it was predictable that anything that undermined that would be excised out of the network.

greyface- 1y ago

Today, when blocks are empty, you're paying 1 sat/vB. Back then, when blocks were empty, you paid zero. That's the difference between "all about blockspace" and "only about blockspace when you care about next-block latency". Here's a 2010 Satoshi post in a thread about transaction fees stating "we should always allow at least some free transactions": https://satoshi.nakamotoinstitute.org/posts/bitcointalk/threads/213/#5 https://satoshi.nakamotoinstitute.org/posts/bitcointalk/thre... If you had said "2 dollars" instead of "2 cents", we would be in complete agreement. All I'm saying is that mandatory transaction fees were not baked in at 2 cents.

yieldcrv 1y ago
and all I’m saying is that it didn’t matter for a bullish thesis whether this is just a nitpick fyi or a nuance you really care about the only thing that mattered was the malleability of the system to meet its goal of attracting transactions, including the future malleability of what you are pointing out. blockspace became scarce. it was predictable that anything that undermined that would be excised out of the network.