News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:An analysis of Bitcoin's throughput bottlenecks by dylkil on Wednesday May 12, 2021 @05:25PM (#27135322)
You'll get many different responses to this question depending on who you ask. If you want to read into further i recommend you read the great scaling debate[1]. Its pretty long but does a fantastic job of summarizing the history.

In short the most popular reason for not having a block size increase (to allow many low fee transactions) was that it would increase the cost of running a full node, in turn centralising the network. More transactions would mean nodes would need a bigger hard drive and a better cpu to process the transactions. The small block camp wanted people to be able to run nodes on a raspberry pi. This theory is misguided in my opinion though, they chose to sacrifice cheap transactions to keep node running costs cheap.

[1]https://medium.com/hackernoon/the-great-bitcoin-scaling-deba...

Re:An analysis of Bitcoin's throughput bottlenecks by itsdsmurrell on Wednesday May 12, 2021 @06:19PM (#27135857)
They (the devs that control the repo that almost all miners run code from) chose to stifle the base layer to profit from higher layers using 'goat herders should be able to run a full node' as the excuse.
Re:An analysis of Bitcoin's throughput bottlenecks by gruez on Wednesday May 12, 2021 @06:43PM (#27136064)
>to profit from higher layers

How are they profiting?

Re:An analysis of Bitcoin's throughput bottlenecks by dylkil on Thursday May 13, 2021 @04:46AM (#27139922)
the liquid network is owned by blockstream and they get the fees for transactions on it.