0 sats \ 5 replies \ @k00b 8 Jul \ on: A Bitcoin Node behind every blade of grass bitcoin
For bitcoin to succeed, we need to scale sovereign usage. Not just as an egalitarian dream, not to help commerce, but in mutual defense. Every user subservient to a custodian makes no meaningful impact on preserving the monetary properties. But every user at least monitoring the chain - completely independently, out of their own self interest, and making economic decisions based on their findings - serves as another guardian of the monetary properties, which benefits everyone. If this becomes entrenched, trying to subvert the system is untenable. A Japanese Admiral is famously attributed the quote: “You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass”, and though it is likely apocryphal, the sentiment is undeniable - and makes particular sense in bitcoin.
I'm a prone to making "egalitarian dream" arguments, because it's what gets me out of bed at 6am every morning, but the egalitarian argument, like every argument made on the ossification side, presupposes a defensible network.
With the election going on one thing I keep hearing on repeat is younger generations can't afford homes and a variety of theories as to what that does to our nation. In an admittedly oblique way, this situation reminds me of that. Why would someone fight to protect a place where they don't/can't own anything?
write
preview
111 sats \ 4 replies \ @clr 8 Jul
I'm sorry, but I don't follow. If the bitcoin network is not defensible, then what's the point? Wouldn't it be game over and fiat forever? Why even bother trying rather than just giving up and having forever slavery?
reply
31 sats \ 3 replies \ @k00b 8 Jul
The article argues scaling self-custody scales defense.
So I think we're on the same page. My poor writing might've hidden that though.
reply
10 sats \ 2 replies \ @clr 8 Jul
I think it's my fault. I hadn't read the article; only your excerpt. I agree in that nobody is going to bother with running a node if they cannot even afford to write a transaction on the blockchain.
I don't want ossification forever, but I do want extreme caution with changes. Almost every month there is a developer coming up with a happy idea to fork the base layer and the pro-ossification camp will sharpen those ideas so that only the very best pass the filter.
reply
10 sats \ 1 reply \ @k00b 8 Jul
That's the perspective of most bitcoiners I'd guess. Until something gets through the pro-ossification camp's filter though, the filter is going to appear clogged to anti-ossification people.
reply
100 sats \ 0 replies \ @pakovm 9 Jul
In my view the filter is clogged, good ideas are not enough anymore, for some even GSR is a possible attack vector just for the inclusion of CAT and CTV, which is wrong, since GSR is being designed to mitigate the risks those op_codes could impose.
I get that we are an anarchic system and there's no governance of any kind, just systems to prevent unexpected changes, but there also isn't a good system to implement good changes without destroying the network, I think we should start copying some things from BCH and Monero since their way seems to work, althought that's also dependent on their different cultures around upgrades, anyhow, my point is: you can't argue with stupids and they are part of the consensus.
reply