Not true… a typical block isn’t 4mb and besides Satoshi originally shipped Bitcoin with no block size limit. You seem to be purposely ignoring that lol 😂 Removing the segwitt discount does nothing but harm lightning and doesn’t prevent large op returns or taproot exploits…. It certainly ignores the “CORE” problem. We need to address the centralization of the development client, not just tinker with weights.

Core needs to be addressed as it’s who sleepwalked us into this. Imagine a day when they will propose to award even bigger discount. What would you say? Not trying to avoid your point. Are you suggesting we should remove block size? If not first value defined by Satoshi is our best point of reference.

I wouldn’t see any value in increasing block size or segwitt discount. I don’t think it should change either. Lightning works wonderfully and it’s not the issue causing the chain bloat. It’s Core and their attitude of surrendering to spam, their resentment of the plebs and node runners. Thats why I run Rdts. It’s temporary, and stops the bleeding, and sends a message that BTC is purely money, not a place to store data, jpegs, or run scams like citrea’s stablecoin. It has the added benefit of making core irrelevant lol

Oof

The original sin.

@Bitcoin Mechanic would you be open to having a conversation about this? The “Landauer Attack” on Bitcoin goes much deeper to the economics SegWit implemented. Objectively, SegWit did not need to change the block economics and implicit blocksize nodes must bear to activate LN/MSig/malleability. Why did we change the economics of Bitcoin and was that decision grounded in conservation? View quoted note →