You have to think in terms of the amount of coin available - supply & demand, per block reward. Also transaction fees are meant to replace the block subsidy, so ideally the # of txs and fees should rise to make up the difference.
Post by twetch#14770
But that means unless transaction frequency goes way up fees go up. And then people will question if they want to use this network or not. I see the logic. Hopefully there are plenty of transactions to balance fees.I wonder how it will actually play out 🤔
What the chain says
- Block
- 622 678
- Time
- 2020-02-19T00:39:14Z
- Signer
- 1BC46HhEo58qD7RPCr4fkhnRjsHJtzefQQ
- App
- twetch
- Type
- post
- Content type
- text/plain
- Name in tx
- twetch#14770
Fields the transaction did not carry are omitted. Open the payload to see the bytes as stored.
Signed by
1BC46HhEo58qD7RPCr4fkhnRjsHJtzefQQ VerifiedReplies (2)
The whole reason we big blockers have been fighting to remove the blocksize cap has been specifically to increase the # of transactions per block and thus the total fees earned per block to make up for the halving. Bitcoin must scale or die.
It isn’t the # of transactions alone - it’s the fees per byte, so applications are required that create more reasons to transact, such as storage and computation which apps like Twetch prove works on BSV.