If 51% or your quoted 75% make the shift then a new larger Blockchain will be born. Which means faster transaction times and a new era for BTC and a revolution in Altcoin competition as well.
Not faster transactions, still 10m blocks. Just more of them, and a blockchain increasing at a faster rate with more dust transactions.
I'd rather see high fees instead because I don't see bitcoin as a currency for day to day transactions. I want it to be a slow but reliable and universally accepted store of value. The gold standard of crypto.
I might want to make a few relatively sizable transactions per year and I don't mind if the fees are even 1 or 2 dollars per transaction. Its a small price to pay for the luxury of transferring anywhere in the world and without currency controls.
There can always be other altcoins, like navajo
to buy coffee with. We don't need bitcoin for that
If today you find a place where you can pay a cup of coffee in NavajoCoin,
then I'll pay you a coffee.
However I understand what Hashforce101 meant, sometimes happened
to me to make a small transfer from a pool or an exchange, so without
having any control over the fees, and although it was already created
the transaction and was visible on the block explorers, there took almost
an hour before the transaction was included in a block and later confirmed.
In theory a bigger block should decrease this wait time in the queue, and
then make the transaction a little more 'fast'.
But give me some dismay see that there are blocks, loaded with hundreds
of transactions almost touching the limit of the block size, and other
blocks instead of transactions have 0 or less than 10.
Highly illogical, even considering the flow of transactions that the BTC has.
This makes me think that there are "miners" who create blocks without
assembling transactions, so without doing their duty.
Prior to enlarge the size of the block, I think it might be better
to change the rules of reward and pay in full the new blocks generated
mainly only when they carry transactions already queued for several
minutes.
But I doubt that this would please all the miners.
Personally I do not think at the time, that a fork "hostile" is the
best way to do things, there is the risk of doing more damage (even
just of image) than good. I prefer the democratic path.
Or alternatively create a new coin, but I realize that the way to
create a currency alternative to BTC, which may also correct other
structural defects of bitcoins, is very arduous.
The forums are full of the corpses of alt-coin that have tried
and failed, although in their own way, technically someone had
some interesting points.
So, AFAIK none of the survivor altcoins so far has managed to be
more popular of the BTC.
Finally, I agree with the fact that the BTC is considered somewhat
as the correspondent of gold, and could become even more money for
the elite, but a fee increase, IMHO could eventually backfire cascading
also on all minor currencies.
But, being a coin for the elite and with high fees, are not themselves
a defeat of the "reason of being" of the cryptcoin in general?
Bye Bye
