Yes, the existential threat is a spectrum, the larger the UTXO set its, the harder it is for smaller nodes to verify it and does the Bitcoin network even mean anything if everyone cannot verify it?
That said, the block does have a size limit, and the threat cannot go beyond that, but it would still suck if most of the block is doodles, and it would suck even more if you can't even ignore it.
Appreciate the explanation, still don’t see it as an existential threat if storage costs continue to decrease. Running spam on my node doesn’t personally bother me.
Plummeting storage costs is an assumption.
It maybe a good one, but I'd want my system to work without relying on a lot of assumptions.
If storage costs stay the same or increase, then eventually node size is a problem anyway, just with monetary transactions, no?
Yes but the effect is less drastic, there is no right answer here, just that my personal opinion is that "it's not a problem" is not a good way to address something that is a tradeoff and all tradeoffs can become problems and we should absolutely be aware of them instead of ignoring them.
Yeah, I think discouraging extremes is a good starting point. If people can shove stuff in op return (and simultaneously outcompete some shitcoin utility) instead of utxos, makes sense to me.
Bitcoin is worth over 100k USD per coin. The hashrate is over 900 exahash. We are closing in on block height 1 million and one can run a node with 1 tb hard drive. I think we can safely put the storage cost argument to bed for the time being. 😂
I think the "knots" side uses our conscious deprioritization of the issue, into sounding like apathy and perhaps even a support for spam.
I don't like to play into that, the spam is a problem, having OP_RETURN is a better solution to it than limiting it.
I think one of the arguments is somehow the doodles and what not are going to make fees to high or something. .... If only there was a solution... Maybe in the White paper...?
