Replying to Avatar sommerfeld

Gun to your head: would you rather see increased adoption through custodial wallets or bigger blocks?

Don't give me cop-out 3rd option pussy answers. Just play along in my hypothetical scenario in which those are the only 2 options.
ed
ede3d957... 2y ago

Easy. Bigger blocks.

Custodial wallets mean surveillance, confiscation, fractional reserve, trading against the customers/population. Store of value/max supply doesn't mean anything when governments allow entities to go fractionally. Especially if 99% of activity takes place between custodians you could just sign up for the CBDC.

Bigger blocks only become dangerous when only Google, Amazon & co. can run the data centres like with all proof-of-stake coins today.

But that is much further down the road and technical progress plays into our hands as a smaller or bigger offset of the negative consequences.

#Bitcoin #Monero

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

ed
ede3d957... 2y ago

Luckily reality is easier than that. That's my Bitcoin centric perspective.

Since other chains like Monero with bigger blocks exist there is no need for BTC to ever increase blocksizes. And even in a world where fully custodial BTC can not be used to get into Monero, I certainly would use any coin that can gap the world between "white labeled" and "black free" markets. So what I say is that in that scenario even shitcoins will have value in the future for those who seek maximum privacy on-chain.

Avatar
Cyber Seagull 2y ago

Both end up custodial. Not cool. Custodied wallets like binance are already censoring tx's. Larger blocks, as you say, lead to only large players.

In the hypothetical, third options don't exist, but in reality they do.

Drivechains; reduce the block size (yes , reduce, you read that right) ossify, push scaling to layer 2 , user choice opt in sidechains.

Maxi's would rather see Bitcoin die then admit the simplest elegant solution all along, that they did not come up with, out of their infinite genious.