Both BCH and BSV removed RBF. Miners can make more money from fees in the long run by increasing TX count, not by charging more per TX.
RBF was created due to mempool size growing beyond block size limit. That should never be the case. IMO there shouldn't even be a block size limit
...BSVs fault was that many services dependent on running own nodes started to fail w. huge blocks. Now it is extreme centralized w. VERY few nodes & hence single points of failure.
Maybe home nodes that aren't doing anything. For miners the increased block size is fairly negligible.
What do you think about dynamic block sizes? With a fee structure encourage increasing blocksize when it's appropriate to do so, ofc
Not sure what you mean by dynamic block sizes. As you said there will always be some sort of limit. But if people are hitting it then something is wrong IMO.
Sounds like a mess, not sure why you'd ever lower the block size cap. If miners can't handle more transactions they should get off the network.
It's not about miners being unable to handle more transactions; it's about having block sizes that match mempool demand
Mostly agree with this.
Block size limit should in principle have no limit. But in reality there will always be a limit.
