There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.
We don't have transaction fees to control how many transactions are made, we have rate-limitations for that reason.
If somebody wants to use the platform more, they should either earn or buy more SP.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Well, the main user group that is impacted is new users. I don't know if that is a good thing.
It's a valid idea, and one of the options I presented - but I don't think it was the original design. One of the main goals is to onboard new users to the platform. Things that may make people run the other way should be considered carefully.
Of course new users should be given enough SP to use the platform without too much disturbance. And they could be offered a chance to buy SP when they create an account so they can be sure that no problems will come in the near future.
That is true, but the various parameters are somewhat arbitrary. There's no inherent reason that 64k blocksize is the 'right' right tradeoff and that 128k would be the 'wrong' one.
There seems to be an expectation that new accounts should cost somewhere in the $5-$20 range and that that should be sufficient for reasonable usage. A natural consequence of that is that as the STEEM price rises, the blocksize (and overall network capacity) has to scale along with it (not necessarily in lock-step though).
Good points, but I started to wonder why nobody has been proactively thinking about this? So I wrote a blogpost: From reactive politics to proactive politics (in blockchain governance)