<p>That will be part of the solution, of course. But it's already assumed that in the far future there will be more transactions. That's not a solution in and of itself.</p>

<p>Keep in mind also, that the more transactions there are, the more valuable the system is, and so the greater the incentive to attack, and the more mining is required to defend it.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-08-20T19:44:44.603Z
2015-08-20T19:44:44.603Z
Meni Rosenfeld
<p>Disclaimer: I am new to this forum and Bitcoin/cryptocurrency in general.</p>

<p>After all 21 million bitcoins are released into circulation, it seems that the incentive to mine is gone unless transaction fees are used. But if transaction fees are too high the incentive to use Bitcoin is reduced.</p>

<p>If the block size is increased the total number of transactions per block would increase, which results in more total reward for that block. This would also allow individual transaction fees to be quite low.</p>

<p>So, is this a feasible way to solve the "End of mining" problem?</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-08-20T21:58:34.177Z
Why do you believe the limiter right now is the block size? The average block is under half full, there's no indication that transaction volume is at all hampered by it whatsoever.
Claris
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-08-21T04:00:20.390Z
I didn't mean that the block size is a current issue. I was merely asking if increasing the block size would be helpful in the future when all bitcoins have been released into circulation. I agree it is not currently a pressing issue.
Code is good
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-08-21T04:03:23.403Z
Now I see the confusion I have edited the question for clarity.
Code is good
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-08-21T04:03:29.653Z
I was mostly commenting on the phrase about increasing the block size increases the number of transactions. Part of the reason for a limit to begin with is to discourage people from making abusive transactions that say, attempted to store the entire 7 seasons of Futurama in transactions. I don't think there's a block size big enough to absorb all possible misuse of the block chain.
Claris
<transaction-fees><mining-reward><block-size-increase><blockspace-market>
Could increasing Block size solve the "End of mining" issue
Code is good
# Could increasing Block size solve the "End of mining" issue

(Asked by: username_0 on 2015-08-20)

Disclaimer: I am new to this forum and Bitcoin/cryptocurrency in general.

After all 21 million bitcoins are released into circulation, it seems that the incentive to mine is gone unless transaction fees are used. But if transaction fees are too high the incentive to use Bitcoin is reduced.

If the block size is increased the total number of transactions per block would increase, which results in more total reward for that block. This would also allow individual transaction fees to be quite low.

So, is this a feasible way to solve the "End of mining" problem?

**Tags:** transaction-fees, mining-reward, block-size-increase, blockspace-market

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Why do you believe the limiter right now is the block size? The average block is under half full, there's no indication that transaction volume is at all hampered by it whatsoever.  
> **username_0**: I didn't mean that the block size is a current issue. I was merely asking if increasing the block size would be helpful in the future when all bitcoins have been released into circulation. I agree it is not currently a pressing issue.  
> **username_0**: Now I see the confusion I have edited the question for clarity.  
> **username_1**: I was mostly commenting on the phrase about increasing the block size increases the number of transactions. Part of the reason for a limit to begin with is to discourage people from making abusive transactions that say, attempted to store the entire 7 seasons of Futurama in transactions. I don't think there's a block size big enough to absorb all possible misuse of the block chain.  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_2 on 2015-08-20. Score: 1

That will be part of the solution, of course. But it's already assumed that in the far future there will be more transactions. That's not a solution in and of itself.

Keep in mind also, that the more transactions there are, the more valuable the system is, and so the greater the incentive to attack, and the more mining is required to defend it.


---

