I agree that Lightning is not the answer. And I presented a question to asknostr earlier this week asking what we do when fees get substantially higher for substantially longer, and essentially got a shrug in return.
We're not ready, and this next bull market we're really going to feel it.
lol I didn’t even mention the fees in my thread.
But yes if L1 fees become too expensive for plebs to open channels. LN is broken scaling model.
Last time this happened people started using Litecoin. 🤦
Well what do you expect when no one want to do why should have been done in the first place.
Bigger blocks.
It’s always been that fucking simple.
Bigger blocks will bring fees down.
Bigger blocks will let in more transactions to make up for the small fees.
Miners still get paid, we still get to make cheap transactions.
That wouldn't scale either. It would be a short term bandaid and you'd need to completely tip the apple cart to implement.
Big block sidechain keeping mainchain blocksize small so everyone can run a L1 node.
Just no.
I don’t think I have much of say. But just making position known maybe it will help others understand.
Apparently bitcoin core want to soft fork to fix the security vulnerability in the LN. Complete shitshow really.
Have we not learned that side chains/ merged mining just first work?
For fucks sake you’ve read the white paper right? Right?
Why are we deviating from it when it works?
It just works.
Nothing else is needed.
Just the L1 blockchain.
Maybe the bcashers are right. I don’t know. It’s a shitshow that’s for sure what’s happening with scaling bitcoin atm.
Again why are we deviating from the white paper?
You been here longer than me. Maybe you can tell me hahaha
Yeah 90% of everyone forgot that the 1mb limit was temporary & that the internet would get better Lmfao.
But no one cares and thinks we need more broken code to fix what wasn’t broken.
Is it really so simple ?
Who stands to gain the most my keeping the block size smaller, keeping the transaction fees higher?
Who stands to gain the most from complex transactions to open ln channels?
Who stands to gain the most from merged mining & sidechains?
What is their argument for keeping Block size smaller? Ive never understood this.
So people in poorer countries could run full nodes easier.
All three questions have the same answer.
Miners.
Which miners the ones who can’t afford to run at a loss.
Which miners are they?
The corporate company miners.
Why does this scare people?
Of course not. There are always tradeoffs. Small blocks = more blocks = more participation = greater decentralization. Larger blocks may also slow down settlement as generally smaller blocks means more frequent blocks.
Changing the block size has absolutely nothing to do with block time.
Smaller blocks doesn’t mean faster blocks times.
Bigger blocks doesn’t mean slower block times.
Right that's difficulty
Yes that’s what makes the adjustments to keep ~10 min blocks as hash rate changes.
This makes sense. There is a trade off. It’s not so simple.
You think that’s how things work?
I was more just trying to understand his point of view.
What is your opinion on the notion that block size increase is just kicking the can? Scheduled block size increases?
Dynamic block sizes
Go get Peter Todds job. Tell em to get sorted haha
Maybe I fucking will.
I knew my thread would inspire someone to take action. haha
Honest question: does the white paper say to increase block size?
It doesn’t even mention there is a limit
Well the LTC/Fiat chart does look like it’s ready for that 🤓
If I was a trader I'd probably be scooping up some LTC waiting for the next BTC fee nightmare.
But I'd rather just stack more sats. 🔥
I was reading that ordinal degens are trying to move their tokens to taproot assets. So if that shitcoin casino takes off lightning could break.
I am pretty sure Udis goal with Taproot wizards is to break lightning.
I'm dumbfounded at how many folks seem to think the shitcoinery on Bitcoin is over. We just got a taste. It's going to get so much worse.
Oddbean new post about login | logout 
