From “we don’t know what we’re doing” to “we don’t know what we did” Restoring the blocksize to 1MB maximum and removing the SegWit discounting of arbitrary bits is the fastest way to a resolution of spam and the most conservative approach. A full SegWit block16x’d the memory surface written per block of time vs the memory surface Satoshi defined at 1MB where 1 bit paid = 1 bit written. Nodes are storing up to 4x memory for 1/4 the cost. If you care about spam, price the fucking bits on your node correctly. “We don’t know what we’re doing”. Damn straight. 9 years of madness and counting. This is the only neutral objective path. A reduction in blocksize is a reduction in “spam”. I thought we “won” the blocksize war? Why did the blocksize change? Why 4MB? Why 1/4 discount? 1 bit ≠ 1 bit. We’ve depegged the bit from the coin. The only sane answer to all of this is objective neutrality. 1 bit paid MUST EQUAL 1 bit written. There is no free lunch. We need a Bitcoin Reversion Proposal. This is not the chain Satoshi gave us. The answer isn’t left or right, it’s back; back to the original economics. Back to the original chain. 21M/1 MB/1 Block View quoted note →

Replies (4)

I fully agree. Do we know what the original justification for the discount was though? Was it a sort of "gift" to the big blockers to help them calm down?
Teo's avatar
Teo 1 week ago
As I understand it, we could keep the malleability without the increased block size.
A sly and roundabout way to change blocksize? I’m no expect here regarding the history and the compromises. We didn’t win the blocksize war with the code that is currently being run. Satoshi’s economics diluted. It was a necessary “failure” in the process IMO.