Nope, didn't know that, and for sure they would have the incentive to do it 😅😅
Thing is sooner or later, fees will be even higher than today. It's just a when not an if. Other thing is, how much mjney does this attacker/s have. Not sure this can last too long.
I have no disagreement about fees destined to be higher. Time is a component though. Bitcoin could have used more time to explore more robust L2 and L3 ideas. There is also a ticking clock counting down to a point where bad actors will start using inscriptions as an excuse to start agitating for forks and other highly divisive actions.
I see your point, and I agree. It is not a topic that can just be avoid, should be a more organic discussion made to build a solution. I was not around during 2017 but looks something like that, with sides battling. And us you say could be planned by some that knows "Dividi et impera" is a good tactic in war. Bitcoin enemies are everywhere, because it could disrupt many of the old system incentives.
Anyone who paid attention through the Blocksize War probably is experiencing a flashback or two. At least I don't have to look at Roger Ver's stupid face this time around.
I know about him just from a couple of video and an old documentary.. for real has a very stupid face that reflects the actions he did ahahaha
Wasn't around at the time but I feel the argument against bigger blocks wasn't so much technical but bc big blockers were pushing too hard without large consensus, also segwit was an option on the table that could be enough before taking riskier options.
I think if inscriptions continue for another, what, year? we will start to see both well-meaning and malicious actors begin to carry narratives that advocate for *drastic* measures need to be taken with the cose. I think that is the greatest risk. We lucked out with SegWit being a soft fork, thanks to Luke, and we may not be so lucky this time around. A hard fork breaks the world's understanding of what defines bitcoin. It creates a wider attack surface, socially and technically.
* drastic measures be taken with the code
The pressure to do something is very likely if this continues for a long time frame. I'm not against HFs, if there is wide consensus, I think bitcoin never having HFs in the future is a bit romantic and can lead to less optimal solutions but I also don't believe an blocksize increase will happen through HF in this cycle, even with high fees for a long time, but things will get hot for sure in the community.
We will need at least one hardfork to address Unix time rollover. HF's would be a political disaster if they aren't extremely small, targeted, critical fixes to address universally-acknowledged existential threats. They should not include any features that are open-ended dev toys and meant to enhance building upon bitcoin.
The argument of fees reaching these levels much faster than expected and therefore limiting the development of layer 2s and 3s is the most compelling I’ve read thus far. Not sure yet if I agree.
