Published on: 2017-04-02T19:45:11+00:00
Jared Lee Richardson, a member of the bitcoin development community, expressed interest in the concept of blockchain sharding - dividing the blockchain into smaller parts to increase efficiency. However, he expressed doubts about the possibility of resolving conflicts between these shards and committing transactions between them in a trustless manner. Staf suggested a system where different nodes could agree to process parts of transactions, allowing 20,000 nodes to work like 5,000 full nodes.The discussion revolves around the possibility of implementing blockchain sharding in a trustless manner. The concern is about resolving conflicts between the shards and committing transactions between them. Vladimir Zaytsev suggests organizing "branches" of smaller activity to join the main tree after they grow. However, it may not be necessary to accept everything in the chain, and it is too early to record every sight.Jared Lee Richardson points out that fees higher than $1 per transaction are inevitable without blocksize increases, most likely before 2020. He argues that if both monetary sovereignty and supporting daily transactions can be achieved, then why not have both? An altcoin with both will take Bitcoin's monetary sovereignty crown by default.The author suggests that there should be a way to organize "branches" of smaller activity to join the main tree after they grow. They feel that not everything needs to be accepted in the chain and that it is too early to record every sight. The discussion then turns to the topic of transaction fees and whether or not they will become high enough to block home users from using the network. The consensus is that, even without a blocksize increase, most home purchases will be large enough to fit on the blocksize in the foreseeable future. However, it is uncertain what level transaction fees will become unappealing for consumers, with some predicting above $1 per tx, while others predict above $10 as being niche-level. Without a blocksize increase, fees higher than $1/tx are basically inevitable before 2020. The author suggests that if node operational costs are going to be highly weighted, there needs to be a solid justification with mathematical models or examples. The author argues that Bitcoin's core innovation of monetary sovereignty should not be thrown away in pursuit of supporting only 0.1% of the world's daily transactions. They suggest that if both can easily coexist, why not have both? Finally, the author warns that an altcoin with both (monetary sovereignty and support for daily transactions) will take Bitcoin's monetary sovereignty crown by default.In a message exchange between David Vorick and Tom Harding on the bitcoin-dev mailing list, Harding expressed concerns over the effects of rising fees on small miners. He argued that small miners use pools for smaller and more frequent payments, which rising fees will make less feasible, potentially causing them to give up mining altogether. In response, Vorick pointed out that miners get paid once every ten minutes, regardless of the size or number of fee transactions. He also stated that fees are not yet high enough to block home users from using the network, and that it would be unwise to sacrifice the core innovation of monetary sovereignty in order to support a small fraction of daily transactions. However, he acknowledged that rising fees could lead to unintended consequences, such as increased miner centralization and fewer full nodes.The discussion on Bitcoin-dev mailing list revolves around how rising fees could affect the Bitcoin network and its users. While some argue that increasing fees would force home users to stop using the network, others believe that most home purchases will still fit within the blocksize limit even without a blocksize increase. The focus should be on not losing the core innovation of monetary sovereignty in pursuit of supporting only 0.1% of the world's daily transactions. An altcoin with both lower fees and monetary sovereignty would take over Bitcoin's crown. Additionally, small miners who use pools for smaller, more frequent payments would be affected by rising fees and it could lead to centralization of mining power. However, it is argued that fees do not change the payout rate for miners who get paid on average once every ten minutes.In an email to the bitcoin-dev mailing list, Tom Harding responded to Raystonn's argument against small miners using pools by stating that small miners use pools because they want smaller, more frequent payments. Rising fees force them to take payments less frequently and will only lead to more small miners giving up. The centralizing effect is much stronger than the oft-cited worry of small miners joining large pools to decrease orphan rates. According to Harding, miners get paid on average once every ten minutes and the size of fees and number of fee transactions does not change the payout rate. However, he believes that we are still far from the point where fees are high enough to block home users from using the network.
Updated on: 2023-08-01T20:05:59.101814+00:00