Oddbean

He posted it, see frank's reply: nostr:nevent1qqsyy6y0yaew7naut5nalpa6zthk7qvjkh0jpjeul08ks5favy5499spzpmhxue69uhk2tnwdaejumr0dshsz8thwden5te0dehhxarj9e3xjarrda5kuetj9eek7cmfv9kz7qg4waehxw309ahx7um5wghx77r5wghxgetk9u3tpnpk

there literally isn't enough room on the bitcoin blockchain for all these refugees to use it correctly. - buy your bitcoins without KYC - coinjoin them - open your own channels - maintain your own wallet - manage your own channel balances even if everyone is neckbeard enough to know how to do this correctly (they aren't), the blocks simply do not have enough room. 99% of these people would be forced onto custodial lightning wallets and they would have no sovereignty or privacy. maxis like this must know they are lying and being destructive. I think he is a state actor. no good person would act like this.

you still have to create your own onchain transaction to fund your own channel. blocks don't have enough room for everyone to do that. if all the monero and ethereum users became refugees like what fiatjaf wants, only a tiny fraction of them would be able to use lightning non-custodially. I'm getting really sick of this argument. >yeah you don't really have to use a custodial wallet, just wait in line for a blind auction after you check the fee chart and hope that 10,000 people don't want to do it at the same time as you yeah no thanks

And also, it goes in conjunction with other mediums of exchange: although bitcoin is the best, it is not the only method. Gold and barter and other stuff are also okay. (as long as you can see value for value.)

oh my fucking god. you people all follow a script. ecash is custodial and can be rugged. why haven't you thrown it in the trash? what's wrong with you man? the creator of this maxi circlejerk echochamber is literally trying to make everyone who doesn't use bitcoin into a refugee and the bitcoin network cannot absorb more than a tiny fraction of them. and here you are telling me about these half baked solutions with intractable flaws as if that's just going to magically make the problem go away. this is why you maxis are all the same. you want me to completely stop doing what I'm doing as if it's immoral or something and then lecture me about time preference while I'm supposed to wait in the soup line for a chance to buy a UTXO on your gimped network, and how I'm supposed to be grateful for the opportunity.

I don't want you to stop. But just understand that indeed many things are half baked, it is difficutlt to scale above billions of users. But monero would crumble down to the bottom if it had the same task as bitcoin. Bitcoin is not so old and it takes time and development. Yes ecash is centralized and I like lightning more because of the nice cryptographical setup and yes we need to come up with new solutions, but it is a difficult task that you cannot just solve.

I am not against L2 scaling. I'm against lightning. no matter what they tape and glue to it you still have to buy at least one UTXO on L1 to own your own money on lightning. there is simply not enough room for everyone to do that. and this is the worst problem, but not the only one. lightning is the wrong answer. you have the opportunity to do sidechains that aren't consortium based, you could be the first people who make rollups with permissionless sequencers, you could do drivechains if you get some BIPs activated. there are lots of other options. do that instead.

I don't know, but drive chains really sound like messing with miner incentives. The same problem as with other smaller crypto being overpowered easily by a fraction of the Bitcoin mining power, but then inside of bitcoin itself. But it is indeed a way to scale, there are actually many ways how it can be done. The problem lies in keeping security in those scaling techniques while they are being used massively. There are other methods asswell, hashing itself is really fast, so the ability to cryptographically secure aspects of ownership can lie in many hands. Lightning has its usecase but indeed it should not be the only one as the inperfect aspects are bound to give rise to problems. A while back I proposed in a post (bookmarked, unaware of others who suggested the same but I didn't put in the effort to search for them) about reducing stress on the timechain by trade that includes seperate utxo's and lightning, a few months later I encountered a kind of implementation of this idea where miners can trade their new mined utxo's for lightning. And there are possibly other methods too.

Monero is currently pushing ~43% of Bitcoin daily transaction without breaking a sweat. I don't see anything crumbling. Neither Bitcoin, Monero, nor Lightning can scale to billions of users and it may never be possible (or necessary) for them to Yes, we all know it's impossible for anyone else to solve problems outside of Bitcoin. It's a law of physics. I can't even make a turkey sandwich unless Bitcoin does it for me

With monero the whole blockchain needs to be used to find your transactions as they can be in a random chose address on the blockchain. So I don't think that I can prune anything because I would litterally prune one of the essential privacy features of monero. But I can be wrong so call me out if this is the case.

Kind of true. You can't prune to the same extent as other blockchains, but you *can* run a pruned node a fraction of the size of a full node. I've heard some say it is technically closer to "sharding" not pruning.