💯
It seems we’re fighting the blocksize wars all over again. It’s like every few years someone thinks bitcoin’s fees are too high and we need to compromise bitcoin’s decentralization to “fix” the problem.
Rusty is making the same arguments the bcashers did. Hopefully the community rejects it a second time.
Changes to the core protocol are always risky. We need to ask ourselves:
1) Can the issue be solved in any other way, other than a change to the core protocol? Have we waited long enough for other solutions to emerge?
2) If we must change the core protocol, what is the most limited change we can make that actually solves the problem?
Login to reply
Replies (3)
There is a lot to unpack there. I'll just tackle one point out of many. The so-called "blocksize" war was unfortunately named. It was much more a governance war than a war about size. In fact, every side proposed an increase in block space. The bigger question was whether folks like Roger Ver, Brian Armstrong, Erik Voorhees, Mike Belshe and their VCs would run bitcoin, or whether the core devs and community would. Not only did the underdogs win that war, but the market responded positively to it. The problem with the debate was that a governance change was part of the proposal.
Nodes run the network... I appreciated bitcoin mechanics recent video where he laments that it is getting more to difficult to run a node (from the recent spam and utxo bloat)
How is whichever change Rusty advocates for compromising decentralization? Bigger blocks surely did. But you can't claim he's like a bcasher if you can't specify how he's proposing harmful ideas.