Oddbean new post about | logout
▲ ▼
Sovereign Bear | 20 days ago (raw) | root | parent | reply | flag 
 What is the argument against dynamic block sizes?
▲ ▼
techfeudalist | 19 days ago (raw) | root | parent | reply | flag +1 
 To me, dynamic block sizes sounds like a way to make blocks bigger and subject to political whim. 

My view is that we should maximize decentralization of the main L1 to maximize bitcoin’s resistance to state attack. Generally speaking, the larger the blockchain, the fewer the number of nodes that can run it. 

Does that mean we should shrink the blocks to the size of one transaction? No. But if people are putting large volumes of non-financial data in the blockchain, then maybe the block size is too big. 

My view is that the main L1 should serve the global role analogous to FedWire today. A global settlement system for large transactions. All smaller transactions should move to L2s and L3s.
▲ ▼
Sovereign Bear | 19 days ago (raw) | root | parent | reply | flag +1 
 I can definitely see the logic behind smaller blocks, although storage is inexpensive now and we can prune nodes if needed. I guess I find it interesting that this was implemented in Monero, but admittedly I have not spent a huge amount of time on understanding the potential pitfalls of doing so.

I think my biggest concern is the L2s have been rather lackluster so far in terms of scaling and decentralisation. I closed down my LN channel after force closes and the general complexity of maintenance, plus the time required to keep it running. Saying that, for small amounts, Lightning is great despite it's shortcomings. But I remain open to and use alternatives for transacting rather than saving.

My other big concern presently is if they can't coopt it, they will propose crazy solutions like taxing unrealised gains so that the benefits of saving are destroyed.
▲ ▼
techfeudalist | 18 days ago (raw) | root | parent | reply | flag +2 
 Yes, the L2s need work. I believe that’s ok because we still have time. The progression is store of value —> medium of exchange —> unit of account. 

We are still early in the store of value phase. Few people will want to spend bitcoin when they receive and can spend worse monies like USD. 

Once a good chunk of the population is on zero and only has bitcoin, then the volume of spending will increase. People will be then forced to spend bitcoin for their day to day expenses. We’re still far away from that. Maybe a decade? Obviously hard to know. 

We’ll know that we’re moving to the medium of exchange phase when those who only accept and hold bitcoin gets to a significant percentage of the population.