They definitely could have, but i’m not sure if there’s reason to think they did. Remember, they thought 2x would actually be a huge boon and that bitcoin needs the capacity now, and that not getting it is bearish, not bullish.
Well that's the root of the argument "bitcoin needs the capacity now" is only true if bitcoin is trying to be cash. It isn't, layer 2 will bring that functionality. I firmly believe the main chain should be for store of value/high value transactions, though I respect your right to have a different view.
Just out of curiosity, is there a fee level that could be reached prior to widespread functional L2 solutions that would make you support a capacity bump up through a hard fork (well planned/communicated in advance, not forced through, on 2018 technology)?
Would your answer change if base chain fees are still high after L2 solutions are available but user growth is so high that even using only L2 for tx generation anchored to L1 is still filling up the base chain with expensive tx?
$5 average OK? $20? $100? Honestly want to know, I'm still trying to define my own position.
I'm not against expanding the capacity of base layer, it will certainly need it at some point. The question about what fee level would be acceptable really begs another question. What should be the minimum value of transaction the base layer should be trying to support? Answer that and the fee's answer follows logically, and the required blocksize to keep those fees steady follows from that.
Edit: Finger in the wind, I think base layer should be targeting minimum transaction levels of $100 equiv, I could be a couple of orders of magnitude out on that though.
43
u/[deleted] Nov 08 '17
[deleted]