rich1.0npub1fx98zxt3lzspjs5f4msr0fxysx5euucm29ghysryju7vpc9j0jzqtcl2d8https://nostr.ae/npub1fx98zxt3lzspjs5f4msr0fxysx5euucm29ghysryju7vpc9j0jzqtcl2d8njumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2015-08-14 📝 Original message:On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 11:52 AM, Ashley Holman via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > A concern I have is about security (hash rate) as a function of block size. > > I am assuming that hash rate is correlated with revenue from mining. > > Total revenue from fees as a function of block size should be a curve. On > one extreme of the curve, if blocks are too big, fee revenue tends towards 0 > as there is no competition for block space. At the other extreme, if blocks > are too small, fee revenue is limited only to what the most valuable use > case(s) can afford. Somewhere in the middle there should be a sweet spot > where fee revenue is maximised. It's not a static curve though, it should > change as demand for block space changes. > > Failing to scale the block size as demand grows might be forfeiting > potential miner revenue and hence security. > > (I don't think that should be a primary concern though since > decentralisation should come first, but I'm just pointing it out as a > secondary concern). I believe your concerns are included in: 1) Potential indirect consequence of rising fees. [...] 1.4) Less users than we could have had with a bigger size 1.4.2) Not enough fees when subsidy is lower