| But its still the wrong explanation. Think about it: (i) Miners, not average users, hold the voting power. (ii) When the 1 MB block-size is congested (like it is now), miners make significantly more money on transaction fee's. (iii) Increasing the block-size increases supply and reduces demand for priority processing in the block, hence, reduces transaction fee's. Which explanation truly matches your view of reality here. People (miners) are motivated by "A shared vision" or a dollar in the bank account? Look at it closer (quote from parent comment): > > "larger blocks means more resources required to transmit, validate and store blocks and if you cannot validate blocks, then you are trusting transaction validators (miners)" > Can you see the problem with the explanation now? Its written from the view of an end user (of bitcoin), not a miner. But its miners who vote on the fork, hence, the above quoted text is mostly irrelevant to understanding the "WHY" of the fork battle. |
Hypothetically, if blocksize went up tomorrow by 8x, then potentially fees might drop by 4x and volume of transactions go up by 8x .. then miners will be making 2x in fees per block, for maybe 2% extra cost.
That has other flow on effects - if fees are lower bitcoin can accommodate people using it as a day to day currency, then its utility and user base goes up, then the valuation in USD goes up, the value of the bitcoins miners earn/save goes up, etc.
I think there are miners who understand that there is a sweet spot of fees being low enough to facilitate higher daily usage and growth. Also, the majority of their current income is not in fees, but rather in 'coinbase', the reward for mining the block [ which is how new bitcoin money supply is injected into the system ]. They are highly vested in the valuation of USD/BTC, so they will do well if the user base of bitcoin grows.