Topic: [Poll] If Bitcoins blocks were 10x larger, would the miners be earning 10x? - page 2. (Read 332 times)

Of course not. That's why increasing the block size is a headless idea.

On the other hand, if blocks are not filled up, fees will collapse to 1 sat/byte and all of the miners will be put out of business. That will lead to lower hashrate, which means the price will start collapsing too.

Larger blocks mean more transactions per block, but fees may not increase. Larger blocks reduce transaction space competition, lowering transaction fees. Miners may process more transactions at reduced fees.

Larger blocks present additional complications. Since fewer miners can afford the higher processing power and storage expenses, centralization may result. This centralization violates Bitcoin's decentralization.

Larger blocks may enhance throughput, but they dont necessarily increase miners' revenue. Block size affects miner profitability depending on market conditions and technology. Due to reduced urgency and competition for block space, a 10x block size increase may minimize transaction fees.

But it's been many years since those points mentioned. Most miner/pool would have better hardware and internet at this point and various technology (such as company) allows faster block verification and propagation. And as miners will depend more on TX fee as their income, they're less likely to mine empty block.

Bitcoin miners solve math and find Bitcoin blocks to get income from block subsidy and transaction fees.

How easy or hard it is for finding block will depend on Bitcoin network difficulty, total hash rate and hash rate of that miners, mining farm.

I understand like if block size is x10 or x100 than now, will it cause network difficulty higher at the same rate of x10 or x100. With my knowledge, they don't have such correlation.

Because of no correlation, miners don't need to get x10 or x100 earning because of block size increase.

My take: short-term, miners will earn less because currently fees are high because of full blocks. But long-term, a higher transaction volume will lead to more paying users and can lead to more earnings.

I do not understand those technical things. But I understand a few simple things. The block reward will same but the fees they earn from each transaction could increase according to the number of transactions. But there are other possibilities too. If there are always fewer transactions, the mempool will remain empty and the transaction fee will be cheap as heck. So, Imagine a single block containing more than 35K transactions but all of them used less than 5 sat/vB fee. So, If I am not wrong, the miners won't make much money. We don't have to increase the block size to 10x at this moment. All it could be 2x max. It will help balance the network.

Based on the above information, only big miners that have cheap mining rigs, cheap electricity cost and fast internet connection are make money, while the others aren't especially the small miners.

Bigger blocks would decrease transaction fees, but big blocks might trigger Bitcoin's security, it's better to choose good security with expensive fees instead of low security with cheaper fees.

No, miners would not necessarily earn 10x more per block if Bitcoin blocks were 10x larger. Transaction fees do contribute to a miner’s earnings, the larger the block, and the more transactions in it, the larger the fee for the miner. However, this doesn’t mean that a 10x larger block would contain 10x more transactions or yield 10x more in fees. It would depend on the number and types of transactions that are included in the block. So, while larger blocks could potentially contain more transactions and thus higher transaction fees, they wouldn’t directly lead to miners earning 10x more per block.

I'm curious about your curiosity...Do you know something we don't?

I would think that the block reward would still be the same, in line with how it works currently. The difference in what miners earn is an interesting topic. The amount of fees that a miner could accumulate, yes, would amount to more potentially...I say potentially as the fee may be lower due to the block size able to fit more transactions, though the increased amount of transactions may mean that they make more...it really depends on the activity of the network and if these blocks are being filled, and if premiums are still being paid in order to be able to be included in the next block.

My vote is no, because I don't think it would result in 10x earnings.

whomever keep suggesting miners need/deserve/should have 10 more fee's does not understand the market dynamics/economics..
miners were not starving when btc was $17k, they are not starving now its $43k


nodes on the network do not translate to market price effects
most nodes on the network do not even fully validate or archive any more
(see: backward compatibility, witness validation bypass, archive data pruning)

..
also 10x blocks may not equal 10x transactions. and wont equate to 10x fees
 if they just expanded the metadata/witness area and not redefine the base block size
it would be a possibility of bloat filling the 39mb witness but still not effect the transaction count

..
however if they re define the base vs witness to be EG 10mb base 30mb witness
it will allow 10x tx. by which users can pay 10x less in fees individually but then have 10x more transactions per block which would allow pools to still get the same fee total bonus

..
however even before doing a 10x of blocksize under current design, we can EASILY undo some cludgy code to then allow the current 4mb block to actually utilise the full allocation of 4mb for tx data(lean fully validated transactions again) to gain more transactions per block before even doing say 3x .. where by then when doing a 3x would result in more transactions paying less but totalling more in fees bonus for pools than the current block design 10x'd

think about it
if 1mb base had a lean tx count potential of 4200tx a block(calculated by satoshi himself in 2010)
having a lean fully utilised 4mb has potential of 16,800tx. which 3x the block then would be 50,400tx .. using just 12mb blocks

however current design 4mb only averages 4200tx which 10x would only be 42,000 using 40mb blocks

..
the math. if current tx fee is $25
under the current 25% base 75% witness/metadata model of 40mb the transactions could become $2.50 individually totalling the same $105k
under the 100% utilised block model of 12mb the transactions could become $2.50 individually totalling $126k
under the 100% utilised block model of 12mb the transactions could become $2.10 individually totalling the same $105k

common sense, logic shows uncludging the blocks. make tx lean and then scale up by just 3x can allow better then 10x fee less per transactor without taking amounts away from pools and without needing to LEAP to 10x blocks of junk

No, they would most likely earn less.

The only reason why fees are high now and people are paying high fees is because only 2500 or so transactions can fit in a block. So if they increased it by 10x the mempool wouldn’t be clogged and people would pay the min 1 sat byte fee and miners would end up actually making less money.

And we would also lose nodes due to the bandwidth and space requirements for such large blocks.

Although I already voted but it is not a simple yes no question.

It depends on whether Bitcoin is going to continue to survive like that. We are talking about 40 MB blocks every 10 minutes which nodes have to download and fully verify and a blockchain that grows 5.76 GB per day.

The effects of it will first show up as the number of full nodes drastically drop in short term and eventually we move to more centralization and more full nodes that are run on cloud services (another form of centralization).
The effects could also include more stale blocks and even some mining pools going back to the terrible spy/spv mining methods where they mine empty blocks because they're waiting for the last block be verified and can not include new txs in their next block yet.

This could all translate into bitcoin price dropping and the miners' revenue significantly decreasing in terms of fiat as the exchange rate would be much lower.

I doubt the equation is as simple as if space is increased by 10, they will multiply their profits by 10. As thecodebear says I think especially in the beginning it would mean that there would be empty space in the blocks, and if there is empty space it means that people could send transactions with the minimum fee and get a confirmation in the next block. Hypothetically, if the blocks were filled consistently the fees would go up but how much the miners would charge in fees per block would depend on a lot of things, like whether there were still suckers filling the blockchain with spam.

only when the blocks got filled up. Right now there would be plenty of empty space so fees would still be almost nothing so miners would likely be making less. But eventually as adoption increases blocks would fill up no matter what size they are and yes miners would be earning roughly 10x, well probably not quite 10x but close to it.

I'm just curious about speculation.