Oddbean new post about login | logout Where are you on this bell curve https://image.nostr.build/2acd289d43a74c21f766ced68128fbb97f58cc6d65be54c4c9f3f43a20848164.jpg
Top o’ the dome!
I'm not on that curve at all.
Interesting
I don't want the block size to increase and I'm really over lighting as a viable non-custodial small payment system. I don't know Jack about ark and liquid is a bit squiffy but interesting.
Fair enuff, I’m not sure what ark really is either but I don’t think the LN has what it takes to scale. I’ve always been a fan of bigger blocks…
Looking at what it takes to run a node: &*<( larger blocks. 😅
We haven’t come anywhere near close to not being able to store the timechain for a reasonable price & not everyone needs to run a full node…
Yes, we have. Most people outside of countries with unlimited data plans cannot sync the ~1TB that the blockchain is now. You must run a full chain (in my understanding) in order to have a better time with any sort of lightning stuff. That takes a certain minimum of hardware and power to do. Increasing those requirements is not healthy for the long term wide adoption of BTC in a self-sovereign manner.
Like I said must people won’t need to run a full node… For lightning nodes you only need the chain from the block height when the channel was opened from my understanding.
You keep saying people won’t ’need to run’ their own nodes but why doesn’t anyone ‘need’ privacy? Everytime you use a public node you are sharing information about yourself.
Not every one cares about privacy or wants to be private
You should check out this book called The Blocksize Wars - it will give you a whole history of why small blocks are preferable. If you don’t have time for that the HBO documentary on Bitcoin is supposed to have a section dedicated to describing this time in Bitcoin history (small vs large blocks). Yes, not everyone cares about privacy on the surface; ask them to put a camera in there bathroom and everyone changes their toon.
Like I was there for the blocksize wars lol
Then why are you memeing for a hard fork? Why are you not saving in BTC Cash?
Because I never wanted a secondary chain in the first place…
But the Bitcoin community has spoken - small blocks won the war to keep nodes cheep, easy, and affordable to run…to keep them decentralized. Correct me if I’m wrong; it’s possible to change to large blocks without a hard fork and hence secondary chain so what are you talking about?
"Community" lol
Glad I can amuse you, what would you call it? Also you haven’t answered how you expect larger blocks w/o a hard fork.
It´s not about anyone need to run a node. It´s about anyone CAN run a node. That´s the major achievement of BTC. Noone needs to trust anyone. Sure you can if you want to. It is important EVERYONE has the choice. Increasing the block size, adds the possibility that this concept fails. That´s why I don´t want the block size to increase. I don´t say we have the perfect 2nd layer for now. But I know I don´t want to add the requirement for trust to the main layer.
The poorest people can’t run a node now so why does that matter they don’t have the choice of running a full node…
I think most people today can run a node and without the limit it gets cheaper over time. And I would assume they just can´t afford a node, because they don´t have Bitcoin. But tbh I want a BTC where I can easily run a node for myself. And this would be in danger if we would increase the block size. So for me it is no question if "any of the existing L2 techs or block size increasing". It is just a question of "increasing the block size or not". For me it is not an option at all.
The other replies sum up my concerns with bigger blocks. There's also the issue of bigger blocks being abused by more ordinal type BS. I just don't see the upside.
80 IQ Cashu or any custodian requires users to be able to do a bank run to keep them from running fractional reserves. If the blocks are too small it limits this run and the banks that are required for people unable to afford a utxo can get away with it.
