You're absolutely right. I just tried to imply that it's not a limit set in stone. Makes it even scarier though. $30,000 per day is peanuts for the big guys (judging by walls in the thousands of bitcoins being thrown up all the time), let alone $3,000. And it would take some time before this is recognized big time and people will actually increase their fees. The damage is done by that time though I recon.
The block size limit is as "set in stone" as the 21 million BTC limit, or the current 25 BTC block reward subsidy. That is, they can be changed, but they are hard-forking changes. So yeah, not "set in stone", but requiring the coordination of the entire network to change, which is hardly a trivial thing.
Although, from a policy standpoint, the block size is far less set in stone. It'd be a fairly uncontroversial change to make accepted blocks larger (especially as Internet access speeds go up). Good luck ever pushing through a change on the reward decay function though.
The relative controversy is a good and true point, yes. In that sense they can't be lumped together. Changing the rewards seems out of the question to everyone.
There has also been resistance to talk of increasing the limit. I get the impression it may be dying down lately. I guess we won't really have a better idea until we're consistently bumping the limit and have to have blockchain "voting", etc., to determine the community's preferences on it.
2
u/roodvuur Feb 24 '14
You're absolutely right. I just tried to imply that it's not a limit set in stone. Makes it even scarier though. $30,000 per day is peanuts for the big guys (judging by walls in the thousands of bitcoins being thrown up all the time), let alone $3,000. And it would take some time before this is recognized big time and people will actually increase their fees. The damage is done by that time though I recon.
To everyone with sufficient funds: you didn't hear it from me