{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1fx98zxt3lzspjs5f4msr0fxysx5euucm29ghysryju7vpc9j0jzqtcl2d8","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1fx98zxt3lzspjs5f4msr0fxysx5euucm29ghysryju7vpc9j0jzqtcl2d8","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2015-08-14\n📝 Original message:On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 11:52 AM, Ashley Holman via bitcoin-dev\n\u003cbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e A concern I have is about security (hash rate) as a function of block size.\n\u003e\n\u003e I am assuming that hash rate is correlated with revenue from mining.\n\u003e\n\u003e Total revenue from fees as a function of block size should be a curve.  On\n\u003e one extreme of the curve, if blocks are too big, fee revenue tends towards 0\n\u003e as there is no competition for block space.  At the other extreme, if blocks\n\u003e are too small, fee revenue is limited only to what the most valuable use\n\u003e case(s) can afford.  Somewhere in the middle there should be a sweet spot\n\u003e where fee revenue is maximised.  It's not a static curve though, it should\n\u003e change as demand for block space changes.\n\u003e\n\u003e Failing to scale the block size as demand grows might be forfeiting\n\u003e potential miner revenue and hence security.\n\u003e\n\u003e (I don't think that should be a primary concern though since\n\u003e decentralisation should come first, but I'm just pointing it out as a\n\u003e secondary concern).\n\nI believe your concerns are included in:\n\n1) Potential indirect consequence of rising fees.\n[...]\n1.4) Less users than we could have had with a bigger size\n1.4.2) Not enough fees when subsidy is lower"}