I agree that bitcoin should use an adjustable block size, but I'm not exactly sure that this logic follows. Can you explain this to me? If the network could handle more transactions per block, wouldn't the fees per transaction just decrease?
When you on the other hand can process millions of transactions every block (and scalable as needed), you’ll charge far less per transaction while still allowing miners to generate a huge (and ever growing) revenue, while also enabling most of the planet to transact next to free.
From an environmental perspective, if you divide the hash rate environmental impact on a mere 200k transactions every ten minute, the carbon foot print per transaction would seem absurdly high. Do the same calculating for millions of transactions every ten minutes, and you’ll arrive at a far better environmentally friendly figure.
To maintain current mining hash power, as the mining reward halves away to zero, every transaction would have to incur around $100 in fees.
> still allowing miners to generate a huge (and ever growing) revenue, while also enabling most of the planet to transact next to free
If blocks would grow 10x, the blockchain would grow about 50GB per month, every human being could do around 10 transactions in their lifetime, and those would cost around $10 each. I don't see how huge and growing revenue for miners is compatible with "next to free" transactions.
If you measure value as a consequence of utility, they’re certainly far more valuable than BTC (BSV however is a corp coin and has weird copyrights so I wouldn’t touch it with a stick).
Ethereum, with a bigger blocksize had transaction fees going up to $3,500 a couple of weeks ago. A larger blocksize is not the answer.
https://web3isgoinggreat.com/?id=popular-nft-mint-spikes-eth...
Ofc there will be miners who make much larger blocks no matter what, but it comes down to how urgent is your tx?
There would be an equilibrium where the fee is worth the marginal cost of mining it
shawabawa3 already explained it "There would be an equilibrium where the fee is worth the marginal cost of mining it"
The miner has cost X and wants profit Y. He adds those together and now the price is X+Y. Someone wants his transaction on the blockchain, he is going to pay X+Y unless there is a miner that offers an even lower rate.
You're making the assumption that the block reward is high enough to make transaction fees irrelevant, which is a trivial observation and not what we are interested in talking about here.