Oddbean

https://m.primal.net/INtA.jpg https://m.primal.net/INtB.jpg https://m.primal.net/INtE.jpg I checked mempool several times today and almost all of the time, I found mempool filled with garbage data (to scam the people). If these blocks have been filled with garbage most of the time then why do we need 4MB blocks? Why are Bitcoiners talking about further upgrades? Instead it would be WISE to talk about reducing the blocksize limit since the free market has been trying to tell us that we don't need 4MB blocks. It's being misused by attackers and spammers. Reducing the blocksize will probably do following things: - 1) Keep the cost of running nodes very low (hence it helps with decentralization) 2) It promotes scalability in layers (i.e. L2, L3 etc) instead of on chain scaling. What are the real risks by reducing block size? Except some scammers can't scam the people easily (but I believe that's a good thing) I think #bitcoin thrives more with conservatism than progressivism. cc @Luke Dashjr @GrassFedBitcoin @giacomozucco

I don't like the shitcoinery but it's not affecting operation of the network. The extra block space bloat isn't good and fees have spiked for short periods but imo this doesn't warrant tinkering. My bar for intervention on the base layer is very high. Now it's been done, let's see how it plays out and focus on preventing the same mistakes being made in the future.

How do you know that it's not affecting operation of the network? Have you tried syncing IBD on low end computers (like Raspberry Pi4 or Pi5)? If the blockchain grows faster than the rate of improvement in the memory, RAM and processor then how soon we need more expensive hardware to sync IBD (or to run a node)? Maybe think about 2030 or 2035 with this perspective and you will realize that operation of bitcoin is being affected.

I have no concerns over nodes. You can get a 2TB umbrel home for few hundered usd. I also run a Pi. Blocksize hasn't changed, if blocks are fuller than normal so be it. Imo you've got change fatigue from Taproot, people I speak to want to leave it the fwck alone.

Are you conservative about changes, or do you want to eff with the block size limit? I have a lot of sympathy for ossification, but if you believe that you should keep the current block size. Because we know Bitcoin works today, and you shouldn't fix what isn't broken. All updates to consensus code are risky, and should be avoided as long as possible. I'm not a core dev, so take it for what it's worth, but altering the block size feels 10x more reckless than even the most risky soft forks being talked about now (I.E drivechains, OP_CAT et cetera). That alters the entire economics around using L1 for miners, hodlers and everyone else. Nobody could possibly predict all the consequences of doing that ahead of time. Which IMO means you shouldn't do it.

In sound software engineering, when an exploit poses a risk to the software's primary function, the exploit has to be fixed to sustain and secure the core functionality of the software. In Bitcoin talking about fixing an exploit is censorship and an attack on the free market... 🤷‍♂️