pull down to refresh
feeds luke jr spam paranoia (even though its bullshit)
Massive signatures make this problem even worse. They would make more use of the witness discount and thereby bloat blocks to 3-4 MB, thereby making it harder to run a node.
The aim has always been to scale Bitcoin while using as little space as possible (Segwit, Taproot, and hopefully CISA soon). I have no interest in crippling Bitcoin transaction throughput with massive signatures because some people like to spread FUD.
I really wonder about point number 2. Perhaps it is a way to market a quantum resistant upgrade, but it seems short-sighted to fix the security budget problem (if there is one, I'm still on the fence about this) by making transactions bigger.
I think bitcoin should aim for the maximum throughput of transactions constrained only by security and ease of ability to run a node. if there's "too much" blockspace and miners aren't making enough, that seems to be a sign of weak interest in Bitcoin. I don't think that gets fixed by making transactions bigger.
Besides, the trend seems to be that quantum resistant signatures are getting smaller. I don't doubt that by the time we actually implement something like that in Bitcoin, they will be much smaller than the current size.
For instance, I saw this from @lightcoin
failure to fill blocks with monetary transactions looks bad, feeds luke jr spam paranoia (even though its bullshit), and could eventually impact bitcoin price via doubts on hashtate.