General Antony
Ahn'Qiraj Raider
Block size is definitely a concern (currently only ~2500 transactions will fit in a block. Assuming that was not a constraint you could argue that the reward is still too high (driving the current difficulty and energy cost up). Lot of people in the game and it has become big business. Energy requirements rivaling some countries.
A few things I don't really get...
1) Why gate the block validation to ~5 an hour? As I understand it the difficulty change is directly correlated to mining capacity with the intent to statistically meter the rate a block is solved.
2) Why the low limit on block size? You can conceptually have a low (empty?) block, which would serve to confirm the historical blocks and increase confidence of the blockchain, however why put an upper limit?
3) As someone asked earlier, what happens to the transactions not in the current block? Assuming these are held in a queue based on transaction priority?
1. Leads to higher rates of orphaned blocks for small miners further away from the geographically concentrated industrial miners. Basically more work is wasted on a block that has already been mined before its confirmed by the network.
2. Hardware required to run nodes could quickly limit the people able to run them if you just raise the block size every time transactions exceed the throughput. This is the cause of the hardfork for the Bitcoin Cash people, they think lower transaction fees through higher block size is better than potentially centralizing node control. Bitcoin is trying to solve through 2nd layer solutions like Lightning Network.
3. They sit in the mempool waiting until a miner includes them in a block.
- 1