pull down to refresh
Thanks.
I’m not worried about blocksize or blockchain growth. When Segwit was activated, it was with the understanding that it was a blocksize increase that allowed blocks to be up to 4 MB.
The blockchain only grew by about 83.5 GB in 2025. That’s an average blocksize of about 1.57 MB (53,082 blocks in 2025).
For comparison, it grew by 88.7 GB in 2024 and 92 GB in 2023.
Blockchain size in bytes on Dec 31:
The UTXO set also shrank in count in 2025 (after growing significantly between 2023-04 and 2024-07):
TBH, a lot of the narratives seem pretty decoupled from what’s actually happening.
If you think a blocksize decrease or removing the segwit discount should be considered, why do you think that would be expected to lead to an improvement? And what improvements and other effects would you expect?
If you think a blocksize decrease or removing the segwit discount should be considered, why do you think that would be expected to lead to an improvement? And what improvements and other effects would you expect?
I know this question wasn't directed at me, but here are my thoughts anyway:
I think that the witness discount distorts incentives, since it makes inscriptions significantly cheaper compared to any other kind of transaction. Large inscriptions also lead to bigger blocks.
If the witness discount were removed, data embedding would probably shift to the less harmful OP_RETURN outputs, since this would then be the cheapest way.
It would also reduce the blocksize and significantly reduce the transaction throughput, but blockspace demand right now is just a little less than blockspace production. So I would expect the feerates to explode again like they did in 2024 and 2017. While I’ve expected for a very long time that small payments would get priced out over time, such a move would probably make transactions very expensive immediately. What should then be the next move after that?
Or why not have a soft-fork to remove/reduce the segwit discount?
Yes, I would really be in favor of this!
My understanding is that the bloating of the utxo set is a far greater risk than the bloating of blocks... which runes memecoins could still cause.
UTXO set bloat becomes less of a problem with Utreexo.
Also OP_RETURN outputs are not part of the UTXO set.
Then, outside of treating the 'segwit' discount (which bip-110 doesn't even address) OR simply reducing the blocksize (which is obviously much simpler...)
What is the point of Bip-110? This is why I don't use knots or support bip-110. They don't really know what they are trying to solve.
I agree that the BIP-110 approach is not perfect. I would prefer a removal of the witness discount. But I am also not going to oppose BIP-110, since it would still reduce inscription spam.
Friend it will result in a hard-fork, it is not needed, it increases risks for plebs, it doesn't know the problem it is trying to solve (low block-space utilization), and most importantly you could easily end up on the wrong side of a hard-fork which is coming for bip-110 users.
Most users are better running Core on default settings, getting a lightning wallet and using those everywhere they possibly can to educate people on what Bitcoin is.
Hard fork means that new blocks are invalid by the old rules. Bip110 is a soft fork.
In case of a chain split you will not lose any coins on any side of the split. If you don't make any transactions you can wait and see which chain will be the one accepted by the people. No risks here.
Sure there is 'no risk'... but a lot of plebs don't know that. They don't even know that once September approaches the bip-110 will 'auto-activate'... and their nodes will have different rules from the vast majority of miners. There could easily be a 'hard-fork'... and any transactions they make could easily leave their utxos vulnerable confusing their view of the entire network.
My understanding is that 110 nodes once "active" will sever connections with core nodes putting them on a new network leaving 'their new' network incredibly vulnerable - it is a terrible idea and creates 2 tokens.
Influencers IMO are leading plebs down a dark path they are not accurately explaining.
It is not known in advance whether miners will or will not implement bip110. The bip110 nodes will sever the connection to the non-bip110 nodes after bip110 activates not at the point of activation, but as soon as the first non-bip110 complient block gets mined.
Hi @Murch ! Thank you for your working on Bitcoin!!!
What I meant to say is that if people are concerned about the block size... why not just promote a block-size decrease in a soft-fork?
Or why not have a soft-fork to remove/reduce the segwit discount? Bip-110 does neither of these things!
Bip-110 doesn't do anything about 'runes' memecoins... it doesn't prevent any endless number of op_return-based-metaprotocols which spam the utxo set at low fee rates...
My understanding is that the bloating of the utxo set is a far greater risk than the bloating of blocks... which runes memecoins could still cause. Yet... bip-110 still allows 80+ byte op_returns at all!