Ha , your welcome . It suits you , hope to see more of it . Very sexy . <| sep |> i just heard 35 m but i ' m really not sure about it , sorry ! <| sep |> That has been my experience so far , yes . <| sep |> To be fair , it is still possible he ' s talking in good faith , and just has a radically different viewpoint . I ' m thinking the same , and even if we don ' t agree , I think it ' s important that we try to understand his vision for Bitcoin and that we understand and even agree on what we disagree on . I really hope I won ' t be downvoted for merely trying to describe the Maxwell vision as I ' ve understood itMaxwell wants a densely packed blockchain , he wants to cram as many realworldtransactions as possible into the smallest possible blocks , and he wants all ordinary traffic to go on layer 2 solutions . In this alternative vision of Bitcoin , onchain bitcoin transactions will be a very exclusive thing . I see this as a big centralizationrisk ordinary people won ' t afford making onchain transactions . Each bitcoin transaction will be huge and potentially represent thousands of coffee cupsized transactions . The fee is efficiently a bid for being included in the blockchain . Stuck transactions won ' t be an issue in his vision Just like a bid on an exchange can be cancelled and replaced with a bigger bid , due to RBF one can always change or replace the pending transactions and with CPFP one can force through a chain of transactions . I tend to agree that we can ' t scale to gigabyte block sizes and that secondlayer protocols for instant , irreversible microminitransactions including the famous coffee cup will be a good thing , but the bitcoin ecosystem is not at all ready for this . it ' s very premature , and I see a great risk of destroying bitcoin as we know it if we can ' t get the 1 MB cap lifted soon . Bitcoin could have become a big thing already if it wasn ' t for the capacity limit . Bitcoin still can become a big thing if we get the capacity ceiling lifted ASAP . Maxwell is pointing to some speculations on medium describing a hypothetical problem that miners will purposely orphan other blocks in order to steal transaction fees if there aren ' t enough fees in the mempool . This may become a real issue in a future without caps on the block sizes and no more subsidies for the miners . Anyway , I think it ' s moot this is a hypothetical future problem we need to grow capacity and market shares to be able to collect sufficient amount of transaction fees in the first place . Hoping to maximize fee revenue by not building out the capacity is a sure way to become irrelevant . And for all practical purposes , bitcoin is still a quite so irrelevant thing in the big picture .