pull down to refresh
0 sats \ 11 replies \ @LibreHans 13 Sep \ parent \ on: Peter Wuille post about dropping OP_RETURN limit bitcoin
If you like to think so.
I think it just shows that you can't relate to people who can't afford more frequent hardware upgrades, and that you don't understand more data hurts decentralization of nodes.
The more core keeps going in that direction, the more likely it is that bitcoin will march on without them, more than 20% of nodes already seem to think so. It takes forever to build trust, and only seconds to destroy it.
You really beleaguer this pointer over and over again, but hardware costs are hardly a prohibiting factor for people to run nodes. At least not for as long as the block size remains where it is.
reply
reply
You just discovered Moore's law, impressive, nobody ever heard of that before.
reply
reply
Were you a big blocker in 2017? How did you not end up using bcash?
reply
I don't think spam is meaningfully increasing the utxo set size - especially now that there are no new suckers for the brc token scam. That's different to big blocks where the utxo set would grow fast or even unchecked.
I'm no expert, and there are nuances, but I will say that I believe the block size increase with segwit may have been a mistake.
If I thought node cost and/or utxo set growth rate was a problem, I'd push for a blocksize reduction. I think there are quite a few devs who would support it. Far more than filters, where Luke is basically by himself.
reply
Thanks for clarifying
reply
I think it just shows that you can't relate to people who can't afford more frequent hardware upgrades, and that you don't understand more data hurts decentralization of nodes.
Right now, spam isn't meaningfully increasing the utxo set at all - in fact blocks are often not full.
And in the future we'll probably have something like utreexo that means the average person doesn't need to store the whole utxo set. I think in another 2-3 decades we'll all be running nodes on our phones.
In my opinion, if you're concerned for the poorest of the world, forget their ability to afford a node, and focus on their ability to own a utxo. That's where I'd say the real rub is.
It takes forever to build trust, and only seconds to destroy it.
With social media, it takes seconds to convince the masses of anything.
It's convinced you and many others that the vast majority of bitcoin devs are corrupt. Now that will genuinely hurt bitcoin development, when you make devs choose between death threats and slander or a cushy, well-paid corp job. No good deed goes unpunished, unfortunately.
reply
Right now, spam isn't meaningfully increasing the utxo set at all - in fact blocks are often not full.
If you only consider size and ignore how much compute it takes to sync the chain after all the recent spam, we can't really have a meaningful conversation.
In my opinion, if you're concerned for the poorest of the world, forget their ability to afford a node, and focus on their ability to own a utxo. That's where I'd say the real rub is.
Thanks for admitting that you don't care about node decentralization.
It's convinced you and many others
Social media didn't convince me of anything, the communication and actions of core devs did.
reply
reply
And as @lightcoin mentioned, the utxo set increases independent of if it’s spam or not
More users using bitcoin as money will also increase the utxo set
reply