|
|
|
|
|
|
by three_seagrass
2008 days ago
|
|
|
>Block producers (miners) must find buyers for the blocks they produce, if they don't find buyers, they go bankrupt. In a buyers market. With the small block size, bitcoin is a seller's (miner's) market and refusing to upgrade preserves their market power - hence the tragedy of the commons. >You've got it backwards, changes to Bitcoin need to be accepted by block consumers (node operators). The number of bitcoin nodes has been dropping for years. The rational actors who are incentivized to support the network are making the decisions right now by choosing which forks to support. |
|
|
The produced good (SHA256 hashes and the transferable UTXO set of bitcoin nodes) is an excludable, rivalrous good. Hence it doesn't suffers from tragedy of the commons problems. This is the foundation of excludability in economics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excludability
"seller's" or "buyer's" "markets" are weak concepts that don't control which goods are produced. If an agent market sells or market buys that doesn't dictate which goods are produced.
Again, no amount of production nor no amount of consumption can get a consumer or producer to shift their consumption or production to a good they do not want.