Nostr Web Client

I don't think hard drive space / cost will be an issue for Bitcoin adoption long-term.

Advancements in storage tech is so obvious if you actually research the industry.

I still like the idea of some people working on a competing client to core.

This is the crux of where I agree with the idea of trying to limit spam meanwhile, disagreeing with the premise that spam could actually kill Bitcoin due to chainsize.

In essence, I appreciate Mechanic & Luke, & I support their work but, I do not feed into the hysteria portion of their argument.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

ESE 7mo ago

https://primal.net/e/nevent1qqsw40s7ne8kj3en74slawt7zva0gdtxz8dmn5nmsx26u99q9xxz3xckdwhqk

ShiShi21m 7mo ago

This is another short term headwind at worst, not a real threat to Bitcoin in the long term.

Like I said though, competing options & solutions will drive a better Bitcoin - the hysterics have been good marketing for that so I appreciate the sentiments for sure.

Luke 7mo ago

And storage just gets cheaper

bjorn 7mo ago

There's also the block size limit. We should be assuming full blocks forever after some point so I don't think saving storage space is a good argument for filtering spam.

ShiShi21m 7mo ago

Exactly, one doesnt need any technical arguments to win that debate.

Spam is anything that's not necessary for a UTXO to be moved or in aid of UTXO movement (time locks for ex.).

GermanHodl 7mo ago

Isn't the major issue the utxo set bloat and not raw storage? We went from 4gb to 12gb in 2 years and that's forever.

ShiShi21m 7mo ago

In my eyes, this is a non issue long term & is a sign of a more dispersed / decentralized supply.

Doesn't mean we shouldn't try to be efficient ofc, but to say this is such a big issue that our machines can't handle this, well that seems to be a far cry from the truth.

Again, this is just how I see / understand it.

GermanHodl 7mo ago

Fact is, running a node gets harder over time and not easier. Which indicates that technology progress does not keep pace, which means less nodes, hollowing out bitcoins overall value proposition of decentralized money.

There was a nice talk by Luke where he outlines this issue.

GermanHodl 7mo ago

It was this: https://youtu.be/CqNEQS80-h4

This focuses on block size, but it's true for other things like bandwidth, ram and compute which is more affected by size of the utxo set.

ShiShi21m 7mo ago

~6min mark Luke states that the "tech" is improving 18% a year meanwhile Bitcoin is growing at a faster pace than improvement.

This is a fair assumption for a possible short term headwind with running a full node, the issue with this alarmism is that it's not 1:1 - Bitcoin in its current form is not close to exceeding current tech capacity for the avg onchain Bitcoin user - knots isn't even the solution for this either way.

~15min mark Luke states that a snapshot changes the trust model.

I don't see how that's the case as currently you have to trust the developer release of Bitcoin core or knots anyways.

If the snapshot allows you to use Bitcoin quickly meanwhile the IBD is reverified from genesis in the background that would be a sufficient solution in the short term.