absolutely yes, still noone wants blockspace, noone wants bitcoin, noone uses bitcoin. All the other uses rely at least a bit on using blockspace. If noone uses it, pretty noone is also holding and using lightning in the grand scheme of things. We are so early.
Discussion
right so thatâs why I am trying to comprehend the future network state wherein there is a foundational change regarding the state of block space use.
eg: blocks are often empty right now! but many people are holding, using LN, etc.
Bitcoin is not dead!
So when and how in the future will empty blocks cause bitcoin to be dead? like whatâs the actual mechanism
thats not a right answer. Now miners can sustain the difficulty because of block subsidy and bitcoin raising in value as asset. At some point, is expected to be found some sort of equilibrium where the tx-fees need to pay entirely the security of the network. I think if in the next 15-20 years bitcoin would see the same use of today, we can say it has failed someway.
In my opinion also the opposite alarmism, about the "security budget" is bullshit. The only metric to consider is adoption, and adoption, in every form, come always with blockspace demand. If theres adoption, so theres blockspace demand, so no problem for bitcoin in any case, equilibrium will come.
"At some point, is expected to be found some sort of equilibrium where the tx-fees need to pay entirely the security of the network... if in the next 15-20 years bitcoin would see the same use of today, we can say it has failed someway."
See my other response to jimbocoin, I do agree, but I am looking for a technical explanation as to whether empty blocks can physically kill the Bitcoin network.
If we aren't filling blocks in 20 years something has 'gone wrong' yes, but Bitcoin will not be 'dead'
yeah, bitcoin would not be technically dead even in that case, absolutely.
In the fullness of time, Bitcoinâs success will be the replacement of fiat currency. The scale of human endeavors will easily consume a few megabytes of space per 10 minute increment.
Of course weâre not there today. Change takes time. But thatâs the end state. Thereâs no future in which Bitcoin is simultaneously the worldâs premier monetary system AND we maintain sparse blocks.
Those visions are mutually incompatible.
I completely agree (setup your zap wallet pls Mr. jimbocoin).
But I also would love an actual technically-sound explanation as to how empty blocks lead to a dead Bitcoin network, because I don't think they do.
Clarification: dead and failure are different things. Sorry if I led you to think I meant both.
I am not saying that empty blocks in the future mean Bitcoin has âdiedâ. Bitcoin will persist indefinitely. As long as one full node remains on the network, thatâs all it takes. The node that matters is your own. A single CPU is sufficient for mining if thereâs no one left with whom to compete. Bitcoin is the technological cockroach that survives any conceivable apocalypse.
When I say that sparse blocks mean failure, I mean âat the goal of becoming the worldâs monetary systemâ. Bitcoin will have failed, IMO, if it does not become the established, predominant, premiere method of synchronizing transaction ordering worldwide.
Fiat currency is analog. Transactions are reversible and ultimately unbacked. Even if backed, backing requires a backer, and pegs were made to be broken.
The superiority of Bitcoin stems from the fact that Bitcoin is the thing itself, and natively digital. Itâs not a promise like fiat. It is not a contract like stock. It is not physical like gold. In Bitcoin, ownership is knowledge. You either know the keys or you donât.
My expectation is that the world will wake up to the fact that thereâs exactly one thing no one can make more of (beyond agreed issuance), and thatâs Bitcoin. Therefore I conclude that transacting this monumentally important, unique global asset will be incredibly valuable.
The value of Bitcoin transactions (capped by block space) should mean perpetually full blocks with market derived fees. If blocks are empty long term, that signals, to me, that Bitcoin has failed to fulfill its destiny at replacing inferior moneys. (Failure)
wen zaps jimbo?
and yea I love this,
FWIW, my take is that the baseline of consolidation/channel-opens/hot-to-cold-storage-transfers/cold-to-hot-transfers/other-layer-2s will set a robust floor for the fee market which will then see spikes upward during times of global uncertainty.
Will be very sustainable at a minimum and likely we will have a trend of "blocks are too full!" rather than the opposite in the future.
timeline 10 years, we are accelerating
Iâm sure itâs researchable. Like computing the percentage full blocks over time as a line chart. From the shape of that curve we should be able to reasonably predict when weâll hit, say, 95% or 99% full by some sliding window (monthly, weekly, yearly, etc.)
this sounds harder than that but it would be an interesting topic of research, might do some digging later on my own..
out of curiosity have you read the riot report from a while back? https://drive.google.com/file/d/1yzjZJB20A74vQb0-wey18VEELklme1Rq/view
Just skimmed it. Seems good. The charts look too volatile to use for predictions at first glance. Might need log scale? Hard to say.