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.
Login to reply
Replies (3)
also
it's obviously ideologically inconsistent to NOT support having larger blocks, but turn around and support ecash mints as a scaling solution for having small blocks.
its really weird.
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.
View quoted note →
Its just not something we should worry about until after transaction fees sustain mining activity without the coinbase subsidy. It'll happen eventually, and then it will make sense to do those kinds of upgrades.
someday
when I have a lot of free time,
I will count the number of assumptions in those two sentences and respond to them.