But so is reducing onchain user count. It encourages users to use possibly centralized L2 platforms which may become regulatory choke points
-
-
Personally, I believe that the principle of conservatism (which IMO is a good one) actually leads to a different conclusion...
1 reply 6 retweets 33 likes -
Namely, when trading off between risk A and risk B, take the middle road.
1 reply 7 retweets 40 likes -
In general, harm from risks is superlinear, so if you must choose risks then spreading allocation is wise. Cf. "everything in moderation"
2 replies 10 retweets 39 likes -
In this case, I think the correct principle is: cost of sending a tx and cost of running a node should rise at the same rate.
5 replies 12 retweets 79 likes -
Fees are now 100x higher, so should wait for cost of a node to increase 100x before letting fees increase more.
9 replies 16 retweets 81 likes -
This is totally misleading. Miners earn everything while nodes earn nothing
7 replies 1 retweet 12 likes -
The "profit" of running a node is the ability to verify transactions.
4 replies 8 retweets 55 likes -
Yes, but the fee level has nothing to do with the ability to verify
1 reply 0 retweets 8 likes -
Correct. The fee level has to do with the ability to write. Full node cost has to do with the ability to read.
2 replies 6 retweets 33 likes
this assumes "cost to send == cost to verify" is desirable. not true. the 1st only impacts usability, the 2nd impacts usability & security.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
