Replies (94)
Bitcoin died after small blocks one, it's basically indisputable now in the age of ETFs and Bitcoin reserves.
@npub1ah3a...l76e makes a real good case for Bitcoin Cash as a means for all these sha256 miners to recoup their costs in the case Bitcoin goes toast. I'd imagine a coordinated shift to Bitcoin Cash is way more likely from this point, and others, then for a push for LTC or XMR.
LTC is useless and XMR completely uproots the states power, it will be attacked forever.
>it's ridiculous people are now arguing we CAN have trusted banks for scaling with custodial ecash, but we CAN'T have SPV nodes for light wallets and good UX for self-custody L1 transactions.
My only minor dispute with this framing is that the "Bitcoin bank" talk never went away, since Hal Finney was talking about that concept as early as 2010-11; the obvious concession to that counter would be that he was talking about it from a transitional point of view, with a traditional bank adopting and then gradually replacing their financial backing with a (at that point in time) better money. I'd also speculate that he was speaking from a far more optimistic lens on eventual efforts like Xapo Bank and the dozens of on/off-ramps that exist today, when we know where we are a decade and a half later on those fronts, with primary usage of them being existentially necessary but not preferred to the users of those services (I'm in that camp).
The rhetorical framework was adapted, sure, but the talking points never changed; in turn, that serves to highlight how fucking delusional the EBSC hypemen are with their continued prophetization of an overtly compromised currency and its backing members.
That’s was fast, you a speed reader?
Please stop spamming this everywhere. Please sum up the counterargument in your own words, don't let other men speak for you.
Also for all of us using real decentralized Nostr clients, please just past the nevent so it automatically fetches the post in our client so we don't have to give our IP and browser fingerprint to Primal.
I do read fast
and its not long.
also there's some basic "how Bitcoin functions" stuff for noobs that can be skipped.
It’s a direct rebuttal from someone who was involved.
I got into the space as the blocksize war was concluding and remember how shady the bcashers were (especially conbase).
Do not really have much to add other than Roger is a bad actor as far as bitcoin is concerned and it is pretty clear that a bunch of shitcoiners are using his version of the story and this new epstein FUD (which is bullshit) as another way to attack bitcoin
Apologies for the primal link and will copy the nevent moving forward. Thank you for the guidance
Francis is just another zealot. I'm sure he'd agree with that characterization lol
couple things,
the block size limit was never meant to be permanent. arguing that big blockers wanted to "change Bitcoin" because they wanted to raise the block size limit is a sneaky reinterpretation of history.
Bitcoin was always meant to scale onchain and it is HIS viewpoint that is an extreme change.
Not Roger's.
also, Francis doesn't understand that governance is a naturally EMERGING process that you can't avoid.
pretending like it's just not happening doesn't help anybody. large software projects WILL have a governance system.
I understand idealistically wanting zero governance. but that's just idealism, not reality.
people like Francis need to come to grips with that.
another point Roger is correct about is that there's a clear conflict of interest when core devs throttle throughput on L1 and then create centralized solutions on L2 (ie Liquid).
since Francis and Bull Bitcoin *are working with Blockstream*, that conflict of interest now extends to them as well.
just to point that out, I don't think Francis is compromised because of financial incentive. I think he's compromised because hes an ideological zealot and untethered to reality.
so please excuse me if I l don't take his viewpoint particularly seriously.
its easier if you just say " Bitcoin is perfect the way it is and anybody who thinks it should change is an enemy "
We'll certainly have Bitcoin banks
its just the obvious ridiculousness of maxis arguing against trusting Uncle Jim or a paid service to run a node for you
but then evangelizing FOR L3 banks run by nyms to solve the scaling problem creating by the 1st argument.
Is this the same Francis that via his state licensed BITCOIN BULL company sells KYC fiat loans to BTC maxi hodlers as using Bitcoin?
Lol.
there were plenty of shady people everywhere and everybody was being as terrible as they possibly could be.
Roger has been super cringe but I have yet to see any evidence of him being a bad actor.
unless you just consider supporting a blocksize increase is being a bad actor.
in which case, I think you should reread Satoshi's original posts.
Interesting, very interesting!
okay maybe he's ALSO compromised by financial incentive 😆
I recommend it. it's a side of the story that has been overwhelmed by the SOV, maxi perspective.
Good to read even if you don't agree with the idea of a blocksize increase.
Thanks for sharing your opinion. The only caveat I would add is BCH forked and how was the winner chosen?
Economically, people voted for ossification - keep L1 as it is. If there was demand and wish for Bitcoin to be with big blocks, then it would be dominating exonomically. The fact it doesnt is telling.
What Monero/Bitaxe/CoreVKnots tells us, people want decentralisation in all aspects... Privacy, Mining, Node Running.. exciting times ahead.
I think the winner is the chain which is used by people to transact with each other in a censorship resistant way.
NOT fiat-denominated price.
and I think that's a very important distinction.
Noted. Sadly I just don't have much appetite for that sort of thing atm. I'd love to hear someone I stole my opinions from argue against some of these points though. There's some confusion and doubts I've always had about SPV nodes and that sort of thing, even though I've read several long form posts about the whole thing in the past. And the RBF/zero-conf stuff is murky to me as well.
Let you know if I end up picking it up though
the winner has the most fee revenue (and the answer is really funny)
This wasnt important to people in El Salvador. And Litecoin is dominating transactions currently?
oh that's a good metric
Oh yeah, one of the things I remember now regarding smaller blocks was bandwidth more than processor being an issue. There's a name (similar to how we have Moore's Law for processing) for a similar thing on transmission speed trajectory, and it's far slower a growth than Moore's Law (which is obviously not even a real law of nature itself). I remember that tidbit also being quite convincing. No need to reply, just wanted to get that off my chest.
Small issue on your argument against ecash. The nym thing is only today bc of lack of regulatory clarity.
One family/neighborhood member running an ecash mint as a nym, but the members actually know the underlying person is a good model bc you can always go to their house and attack them if they rug pull, and considering a mint should never have more than a single bitcoin in it, I think that's fine.
ETH
shhh don't scare them
Nielsen's law. Which also is holding up quite well.
x200 since the introduction of the 1M "safety" limit.
Average household bandwidth in 2010: 5.4 Mbit/s
Average projected household bandwidth for 2026: 1 Gbit/s (which equals 1000 Mbit/s)
Are you blind to the fact that the one thing that set Bitcoin apart from all other forms of electronic money ("peer to peer electronic cash") has been buried in the flurry of centralized financial instruments?
Hanshan
okay I read "Hijacking Bitcoin"
I never paid much attention to Roger or BCH, he always seemed whiny to me.
and he is kinda whiny, there's a fair amount of rehashing of Twitter and bitcointalk drama in the book, but not without good reason.
I'm ultimately sympathetic to his case. essentially he provides an early 2010s viewpoint and rationale for the development of the problems on Bitcoin that I complain about anyway.
Bitcoin was designed for L1 financial transactions. reserving L1 for "settlement" and moving actual user's financial transactions to higher layers is a change in spec. It isn't necessary to be anal about Satoshi's original intent, but there's *no reason* to not pursue it. nobody's needs to run a full node on an RPI and ultimately, it isn't necessary for EVERY user to run their own node at all.
it's ridiculous people are now arguing we CAN have trusted banks for scaling with custodial ecash, but we CAN'T have SPV nodes for light wallets and good UX for self-custody L1 transactions.
IOW, Roger is right. Bitcoin was always intended to have a block size increase to do *some* scaling on L1, but was captured by small blockers pushing a fringe view that actually doesn't make sense in the light of day. a block size limit that was meant to be temporary became enshrined as gospel.
the proponents of SOV have zero vision for Bitcoin beyond ossification and the fiat enrichment of early adopters. refusing to do ANY scaling on L1 combined with the domination of the SOV and gold 2.0 narrative is a guarantee of regulatory capture of the Bitcoin network. pointing this out is simply hand waved away with " Bitcoin is inevitable " "the hardest money always wins" cope.
theyve succeeded in making this view seem normal and sane.
it isn't. they've just been loud enough to make it seem normal.
Roger makes a decent case for thinking that this capture was coordinated.
it's curious that he is talking about possible links to intelligence agencies who want to subvert Bitcoin (remember Peter Todds leaked emails and John Dillon?) and here we are today with another link between Bitcoin and Epstein as a proxy for the legacy financial system.
It seems undeniable theres wan agenda to keep blocks small and to prevent zero-conf transactions from happening with RBF.
so if you're looking into connections between Epstein and Bitcoin, you would be looking for ways that his money supported this "small blocks forever" argument that enables regulatory capture.
I'm a bad conspiracy theorist because I remain agnostic when there isn't good data.
but whether it's a coordinated conspiracy among three letter agencies, or just a social media push by a minority group of zealous small blockers, the result has been the same. Bitcoin has been captured by the SOV/Gold 2.0 people and there is no open governance so any change is ultimately decided upon by a small group behind closed doors.
if you think Bitcoin doesn't have governance, you're wrong. I don't necessarily agree with how Roger thinks it has gone, but anybody who has experience with open systems knows that governence happens anyway. basically there is either 1)a dictatorship or theres 2)a federation or there are 3)endless meetings for people to air their "concerns" and then the people with actual power make the decisions themselves.
no, your home node does not matter.
and since Bitcoin has the third style of governance the only recourse is a hard fork.
I don't think BCH is going anywhere, as he obviously seems to be hoping. It seems clear to me that Monero has become the preferred silver to bitcoin's gold. I do think we will have a multicoin future, but it's hard for me to see what chains like BCH and LTC have to offer.
although I also exist in my own echo chamber.
so to sum up, Roger does a pretty good job of putting all this information together in one place. its presented through the lens of somebody who is sentimental about bitcoins " original purpose", so there's that.
it should be required reading for Bitcoin maxis. it's also a natural compliment to "The Blocksize War" and good for anyone like me, who didn't get involved in the *social aspect* of Bitcoin until 2016.
#RogerWasRight
#bitcoin
View quoted note →
I use bitcoin as “peer to peer electronic cash” all the time. Just bought some salve for my daughter yesterday. Bought some weed from
@CraftCanna last week
It is only shitcoiners who refuse to accept that lightning works and renders their shitcoin worthless who always claim that bitcoin failed or is failing…
Knowing that the 1M limit was first reached in 2017, we could assume that 20-40M blocks would be just fine for today's bandwidth infrastructure.
BCH has 32M and from there a dynamic growth algo, but is still utilised under 1M and never has been attacked in the way feared by Hal (and Satoshi).
He ran the biggest bitcoin website on the planet and marketed his shitcoin as the “real bitcoin”
Literally tricked new people that thought they were buying bitcoin into buying bcash
Does bull bitcoin do fiat loans? Pretty sure your confusing with strike
Bull bitcoin is pretty based from everything I have heard or seen. Wish it was available in the US…
We are all zealots
You are a monero zealot 😂
Take away your bias against blockstream which has its faults…What from the clip I shared was inaccurate?
Roger and the most powerful people in bitcoin tried to hijack bitcoin in order to control the protocol. They lost and now he is trying to rewrite history and claim the small guys were the ones who “hijacked” bitcoin.
He forked off and found out
that's fine
but the point is you can do exactly the same thing on L1 with bigger blocks.
just instead of running an ecash mint you run a node.
the main difference being you actually have basic L1 assurances instead of a Rube Goldberg machine you have to maintain built on top of L1.
This is all so tiresome…
Bitcoin scaled in layers which is the proper design choice.
Why do we want everything on L1 with bigger blocks?
Ethereum was supposed to be the world computer with everything capable on L1…even those retards realized that you can’t scale a blockchain at L1 and built out layered architecture…
I told you what was inaccurate. You're just not responding to what I said.
Hanshan
this is an "all or nothing" argument and its a false dichotomy.
we should have had a real blocksize increase already.
it's clear that the block size limit was temporary and Satoshi talked about raising it.
this doesn't mean that "the base layer has to be for micropayments for the rest of time"
it's true Satoshi also talked about payment channels.
that doesn't mean "L1 has to only be a settlement layer for central banks for the rest of time"
The big blockers aren't any more retarded than the now-dominant small blocker arguments.
they are both illogical ideological arguments which are not rooted in reality and pragmatism.
and maybe it's just hindsight
but Roger was right that we could have had a block size increase and it would not have caused centralization.
View quoted note →
You are right. I should have referenced that they started heavily marketing as a no KYC buying place but since caved to regulator demands.
I use bitcoin as money all the time - both as a medium of exchange and as a store of value. Sats are also my unit of account for my long-term savings. I use lightning all the time too and it works beautifully.
I’ll never use monero no matter how much people screech. Monero is useless to me. Bitcoin is my money.
There will always be zealots who actually use the tools. I use them too.
Our personal anecdotal stories don't mean that we can disregard the greater incentive structure.
Bitcoin has design flaws that are not being addressed. They will prevent widespread sovereign usage.
Monero fixes some of those flaws. It's just a fact.
Each of us are welcome to have our stupid ideas and root for our favorite team without having all the data. Nobody can be an expert in everything after all.
I have my own LN node and use it almost every day.
Bitcoin is still broken and on course for regulatory capture. Capture will destroy it's fundamental value proposition (of censorship p2p value transfer) and it will be useless to sovereign users.
You just need to calculate how many people can open a $1000-10000 lightning channel to see that lightning doesn't scale without L1 block size increase.
Its in the whitepaper ain't it?
we dont need to abruptly scale to onboard everyone on the planet.
but its pretty fucking stupid to deliberately constrain L1 and then develop custodial solutions on the higher layers,
just to fix our design choices on the base layer.
He genuinely believed that BCH was the legitimate version of Bitcoin.
Scaling via second layers is a bigger design change than incremental increases of the block size.
Users run nodes. Nodes are the peers in 'peer to peer.' You can decide to trust another node, but it's never going to be best practice, nor done without introducing risk.
Blocks may grow at some point. But there's certainly no need at this stage. The only thing getting blocks full is near zero fee tx's often heavily laden with inscriptions.
Day to day payments that take an hour to get a few confirmations deep just don't make sense for most TX's. Even Hal had begun the talk of payment channels in his day.
Average where? US? Seems high for Uganda or El Salvador.
Will have to check the source again.
In many cities you get 10 Gbit/s and even in the countryside 300 MBit/s outside of rural areas is normal. So the estimate seems quite okay.
Most nodes are in highly poulated aras of US, Europe and Asia and that really didn't change over the last 17 years.
Weird, I don't see your reply on Damus, but I do on jumble.
Yes, that's the one (I think). It's a good argument for keeping blocks small iirc.
he's saying that average bandwidth is 200x greater than it was when the blocksize limit was set.
Keys are the peer in 'peer to peer.'
People are cheering ecash banks as a scaling solution and completely ignoring the fact you can get the better tradeoffs by just having bigger blocks.
Its a question of narrative and expressed design. The expressed design goal right now is "Artificially constrict L1 throughput and build Rube Goldberg machines on top to deal with the design limitations".
Which is dumb considering the increase in bandwidth and storage in the last 10 years.
>> Block may grow at some point.
Do you see a lot of indication that might be a possibility? anywhere?
Cause all I see is complete paralysis and failure of any system to make change at all.
The only option is to move to another chain or fork.
It's just bad design choices.
Then maybe I'm thinking of something else. Will have to go check in morning and get back to you. I know where I read it, just too late to go fishing
Ecash is interesting but arguably more for its ability to work offline and some unique approaches to privacy. But also like Lightning, scaling isn't just spacial. Executing faster is temporal scaling and frankly in many cases seems at least as important, especially right now.
Keys are all well and good but if you're querying the network with an untrustworthy node (ie, one that isn't yours) a lot breaks down. When you and your payee see different data, what settles the disagreement?
As for indications soon, no. The arguments if anything are to shrink blocks or otherwise remove the segwit discount. Also concerns that with block space in such low demand we may need to explore ways to keep miners incentivized. If there's any reason to expand blockspace it'll be far off in the future.
arguably because The Narrative for the last 9 years has been to move actual financial transactions to L2. That's where all the real effort of the industry and 90% of the social narrative in Bitcoin has been.
if there had just been a block size increase and no huge push to make lightning The Answer, things would look appreciably different.
I don't think it's plausible to argue that normies trusting a node run by Uncle Jim or a paid service is a huge problem, but that trusted L2 and L3 solutions are NOT a problem.
Storage, CPU, latency and bandwidth are limiting factors.
In general people thought of bandwidth as the biggest limiting factor, because a real P2P node is not just receiving.
Latency and CPU can be fixed through software upgrades with a huge margin. Latency (block propagation) has been fixed in BCH through I believe it's called Xthinner tech. CPU parallisation has not yet been a problem in any coin, but it essentially gives huge headroom for expansion.
Storage expansion is happening as envisioned. It's much more a problem in Monero as Bitcoun can be pruned very efficiently.
Back in the day some vocal people thougt or proposed that laws could break and erroring on the "safe" side seemed smart as no one can project the future.
12 years later we know new tech/ways have been discovered and laws held up.
We killed MoE, because some believers beliefed the trend will break while other believers believed that this time won't be different.
What do we do with this information?
Personally I am happen about this, as I believe transparent blockchains to be a (at the beginnnijg neccessary) design flaw, that never should have been rising to the size they are now.
Oh, hosted lightning's a problem too. But that's being addressed quite well with Zeus, Blixt, and Phoenix. Adoption's not there yet, but Zeus only added the embedded node in the last year.
And then there's Spark, which is seeing rapid adoption through WoS. Still has tradeoffs but I'd call it more accptable than use of a third party node.
What the masses do with their coins isn't much my concern anyway. The scaling debates usually seem to suggest we need to get broad adoption so Bitcoin can be used as money to enrich the community using it. Experiments like Lugano, El Salvador, Bitcoin Jungle, and local circular economies beg to differ. As long as there is a remnant, as
@Alekandar Svetski wrote about, able to maintain a liquid market, Bitcoin will work just fine. Those who don't adopt it will continue to be impoverished and likely gradually move over, or die off as breeding is beyond their economic means.
Most people aren't using lightning because there isn't space on chain -- there is, cheaper than ever (or at least, the Satoshi era when 0 was an acceptable fee). They're using it because it's faster, more private, and arguably easier to handle addressing (though lightning addresses are arguably only about equal with BTCPay in terms of infrastructure requirements).
this seems like a reasonable view, but it seems like a "Bitcoin isn't going to be used by a large number of people anyway" view.
and as long as a large number of people aren't using Bitcoin anyway, those people can run their own nodes
what exactly do you think the positive trade-offs are, of using something like Spark as opposed to trusting a L1 node I mean?
I'd suggest that people are using lightning because zero conf transactions were taken out behind the woodshed and shot.
Anon was right, it was Neilson's law. It grows slower than Moores is one consideration. But I could swear there was one more thing about time to verify large blocks leading to centralization, but not finding details.
I've seen some calculations on attacks of this nature, but not sure enough to say much more.
My block size war knowledge leaves a bit to be desired :/
Spark is mostly okay honestly. The biggest trade off I've seen is that if you do happen to have a provider that for whatever reason is not letting you make the transactions you want, you have to just take your coins and go try another way. They can't rug you, which of course is a heck of a lot better than custodial, but you're still a little at their mercy when it comes to a lot of decision making, including some fee decision as well as, you know, technically being able to censor who you can pay.
In practice the incentives align enough that I think Spark is probably going to be fine for most people, and being able to start getting paid on lightning without needing to open any channels or have any liquidity set up is a pretty major move forward.
I won't say I know it inside and out to really be solid on all the edge cases but having listened to a few decent podcasts and chatting with AI about it quite a bit it seems worthwhile.
I don't know if a lot of people will be really using Bitcoin ever. I don't see it happening soon. The questions I field from people who are already going off the beaten path more than the average person are still way in the area of quite dumb, and the attitudes are very often NOT the thirsting for knowledge it takes to really build your own infrastructure with it. Especially from the younger generations where attention span just isn't there. Perhaps we trend back better after society adapts to some of the insane parenting decisions and role of tech in child rearing gets addressed, but if nothing else it doesn't seem like it'll be changes I'll live to see.
And that's fine. Bitcoin works very well for small circular economies to maintain their purchasing power and grow without being leeched away from by the financial industrial complex. It can be used more broadly, but if it isn't, it hasn't failed.
There aren't any arguments for keeping blocks as small as possible left standing.
It's just everybody has collectively shrugged their shoulders and decided to try to cobble something together on LN.
You are thinking of latency, which was mainly about mining coordination. Meaning less orphans and proper block header propagation, so you don't need to send the whole block at first but have time to download the real block data. This especially ba problem if one block follows fast after another.
I don't know if or how BTC fixed it as 4 M propagates almost immediatley, ,but BCH has something called like Xthinner that theoretically enabled Gigabit transaction 5 years ago.
Correct, that's the thing, thought maybe there was more to it than that, but maybe it is just a miner concern outside extreme cases/delays which would make nodes incapable of catching up. Lopp wrote a good little study on it, which I think I corrected some math on (but never got him to look at it, though I'm pretty sure my correction is accurate).
Post is too old for me to find on mobile atm, sadly. It's interesting and will come back to share it later. It shows advantage one gets as function of delay time they can bake in.
I wanna return to this topic when I have more time. Maybe I'll finally understand a little bit better the complex issue(s) underlying that I've sorta glossed over for a while 😬
L1 privacy is terrible. Ecash and other higher layer solutions provide more than just fast payments they provide a means to obscure transactions and break the kyc trail.
In order to imagine a world where larger blocks are required I need to see sustained full blocks and high fees. We haven’t seen that or even been close.
Price is a signal. Purchasing power matters. To ignore that is to ignore the fundamental purpose of Bitcoin. Bitcoin has more purchasing power than BCH and more security and more adoption. It won.
its almost like alienating all the people who wanted to make Bitcoin a p2p payment system in 2018 was a mistake....
Price IS a signal
its a signal of how much speculative Wall Street and VC money feels Bitcoin is a better safe haven than the other options.
this is not a metric I particularly care about.
Wait
Spark is fine because it's a trusted 3rd party that can't steal your coins but provides a better UX.
so what's the problem with trusting someone elses node then?
It sure looks to me like you've just replaced the trust assumptions on a higher layer. the only advantage being that companies like Spark and Blockstream now have a business model of selling solutions to artificially constrained L1 throughput.
No doubt the situation was fraught, but people like Roger didn’t make it any less so. The dude was a dick.
I use bitcoin way more p2p than I did back then, so I do t really see the narrative that it has failed in this regard. I think having small amount of funds in lightning or cashu is pretty useful thing. I’m not confident any of that tech would be here if the blocks were big.
Bitcoins invention is a response to debasement. If the purchasing power doesn’t out strip that debasement it isn’t doing its job. In this regard bch is a failure and bitcoin is generally a success.
anecdotal evidence aside,
I don't think it's debatable that Bitcoin adoption for payments has stalled and is actively discouraged.
before there was hash attacks on Monero, zero-conf transactions were normal and worked fine.
No.
Measuring against fiat is a mistake. Bitcoin's success or failure is in giving people the opportunity to *opt out of fiat* and transact directly with each other.
Looking to fiat price to measure purchasing power is A metric, but it's not THE metric.
That isn’t something you decide. Fiat is a marker and while it exist as the dominate currency people will use it to determine the relative value of things. An alternative monetary network that constantly loses purchasing power is not successful because the state already provides that service. For bitcoin or anything else to be a success it must defeat Fiat. To defeat Fiat it must maintain its purchasing power and be low friction to use.
If you use someone else's node, and point your xpub at it, they can map your whole wallet, which is a major privacy issue. This could be somewhat mitigated with wallets pointed at constellations of nodes, but even if you're not sharing your xpub you're querying a list of addresses that will be presumed to be yours.
And I knew there was something I didn't like about Spark that had me not using it. It does turn put the spark provider does get insight into all of the transactions users are making.
My best hope for Bitcoin banks that don't give up privacy or rug risk so far is Fedimint. I don't know if they've quite neutralized rug risk but they seem like they may be getting there with some creative methods of blinded federation.
While our territory of freedom remains entirely and completely dependent on imports from the fiat dominion there is no need to scale bitcoin because it's simply a financial asset within the fiat economy.
There's no technical problem with a linear increase in block size if Moore's law remains exponential.
This hasn't been my impression. Especially amid Square, HoneyBadger, and PlebQR making it very easy to either accept bitcoin as a merchant, or for users to pay in bitcoin to another user who pays in fiat for the good being purchased, building in p2p exchange functionality and payment all in one step.
I think the big companies jumping into Bitcoin pre-blocksize war were adopting a shiny new thing but not in a particularly sustainable way to begin with, and they were never prepared for the continued volatility.
At the end of the day I don't want to spend Bitcoin at Amazon -- they can have the fiat. If I only have Bitcoin I can buy gift cards, but as someone who uses both in a spend and replace manner, the people I'm buying stuff from with Bitcoin are those who I legitimately want to support. If I resent that I'm buying from you in the first place but need what you're selling, you're getting the fiat.
If anything really killed bitcoin payments though it wasn't blocksize considerations. It was the rise of stablecoins.
If there had been a movement to use Bitcoin as a MoE 8 years ago
rather than constraining throughput and making it about increased purchasing power,
maybe we would need scaling solutions by now...
They're going back to L1 now. But ethereum is not solving the same problem as bitcoin. It has never and will never adopt a security model where the State is the adversary. So it can safely centralize without breaking the model whereas we cannot.
well, and bandwidth right?
A lot of work was done by a lot of people to get merchants and net producers to request payment in bitcoin but it all failed.
I'm curious how well these will fare in the brewing kerfuffle with the BIP110 chainsplit.
I can't say I have my head around how they work to know if there's a risk here or if they'll just work. May need to do some looking into that.
I usually include chips and the connections between them in my calculation.
my first thought is
"how do I know this is actually federated, and not just one entity that spun up a bunch of keys?"
There's some stuff I don't fully agree with here, but this is a good note regardless and you raise important points.
easy repost
cheers man, I appreciate you taking the time to say so.
This is my take as well. I get paid in dirty fiat and I spend it places who deserve my worst. Bitcoin goes to services I appreciate like ppq.ai, obscura vpn, etc… the Bitcoin economy grows not by users spending but by vendors deciding they value Bitcoin and want to align their business with the ethos.
"Yo, but if ETH ain't trippin' on the same vibes as BTC, how you think that affects their long-term game? 🤔💭 #CryptoTalk"
That's a question I haven't delved reply enough to answer. Probably a better question for Obi Nwosu (or maybe
@Jeff Booth).
I just know that as it's ecash it comes with much better privacy than Spark or conventional custodians. But beating that rug risk is indeed the holy grail...
The game isn't over yet. It never is. There is no end state of victory.
Besides that, think of strategic voting. People pick which fork to support not entirely based on technical merit, but because they dont want to lose their capital and so based on what they expect the majority to pick. Its self fulfilling, its network effects in contentious situations where decisions have real world consequences. Most people expected the established network to win, so they helped ot win, feedback loops and all that. It does not mean that 1) people preferred it technically, or 2) that merit won't win out eventually.
