Itās not about shitcoins.
How do you know why OP_CAT was removed?
As an engineer, do you think itās a good idea to enable powerful technology IN THE BASE CHAIN that has few known limits so essentially nobody knows how it could be abused?
Satoshiās design philosophy was clearly to limit functionality to keep the system simple and safe. He made the system robust by deliberately removing codes that might increase the attack surface of the network.
Itās not appropriate to apply start up thinking - move fast and break things - to the core system protecting the worldās money and our hope for the future.
If youāre wrong, and it somehow disrupts the underlying incentives that underpin everything ā¦ how easy is it to undo it? We canāt, can we?
How I see it:
+ Devs are humans. Even the smartest among us are not omniscient and make mistakes (eg witness discount).
+ All code has bugs. Even if the code is technically bug free, it can still change the complex incentives that make the network work.
+ We donāt have a scaling problem yet. When we do have one in the future, we should allow the pain of it to motivate innovation on upper layers so that we can avoid any unnecessary changes to the base protocol.
+ We should only allow changes to the base protocol that safely fix an existential problem that we know cannot be fixed in any other way.
+ The Bitcoin network is for many, many future generations. We need to think long term and not rush out changes to the core protocol. A decade or two to consider options is a blink of an eye in the life of the network.
Lightning is basically the only layer we can do with current bitcoin. Soft forks are needed to do more scaling. Not scaling on chain but with new layer 2 designs
Lightning is the only layer?
Ummā¦
1) Liquid
2) Fediment
3) Ark, and all the other R&D underway.
As an engineer, do you think itās a good idea to enable powerful technology IN THE BASE CHAIN that has few known limits so essentially nobody knows how it could be abused?
Liquid and Fedimint are not layers, they are custodial solutions. Ark has lots of problems without covenants
I've never seen someone say concatenate is a powerful technology
Lightning is custodial too, isnāt it. No, really, think about it. What percentage of lightning usage is self-custodial? Werenāt you doing Mutiny? Does self-custodial lightning actually work for plebs?
You want to include a technology that you donāt know the limits of. If you do, please explain the limitations. Explain why it canāt be abused. Donāt you think this is something we should know?
Why do you claim to know why Satoshi removed it? What were his reasons?
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
I don't trust anyone that advocates for covenants. They are corrupt and pose a threat to bitcoin with their naivety.
I think itās what separates the developers from the engineers. The engineers understand risk trade offs. The devs do their testing in production.
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
If we didnāt fuck up with Segwit by limiting the block size from being increased to only 1 fucking mb (which was supposed to be temporary)ā¦ which satoshi knew needed to be raised at some point in the futureā¦
The blocksize needs to stay small. It was increased to ~4 MB and already the chain is becoming difficult to sync for small nodes. Everything has trade offs but the highest priority should be that anyone can run a node. This gives the chain the greatest potential defense against nation states.
The block size is 1mb & can be weighted 4x via Segwitā¦
Thatās not what satoshi saidā¦
What did Satoshi say, that we need big blocks?
Yes they intentionally put the 300kb limit & expected it to be raised in the futureā¦ where server farms are only ones who kept the blockchain fully archivedā¦
Wasnāt it 1MB?
When you look at bcash or bsv, are you thinking we should fix bitcoin by bringing those big blocks here too?
No the 1mb limit was supposed to be temporary & was set in place during Segwit.
Scaling on chain works.
I was never a "small blocker"
No, Satoshi set the 1 MB size on 15 July 2010, many years before segwit. Link below.
The big blockers had their priorities reversed. They were ok with centralizing the chain permanently to make transactions cheaper temporarily.
If you are still a big blocker, perhaps you would find your ideological home with either bcash or bsv. Transactions are definitely cheap over there.
https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/98908/satoshi-introduced-the-1mb-block-size-limit-in-a-commit-why-did-andresen-make-a
Yes satoshi wanted to raise the blocksize early on thank you & in that exact link it clearly says it was activated during the UASF which was Segwitā¦
I think you should read it more closely. It says āenforcedā not activated. Thatās because it was already active in July 2010 when the code was checked in. The enforcement in Aug 2017 was the point of the UASF ā¦ to force the big blockers into a chain split.
Did you think you āgot meā? š
Sometimes I get stuff wrong, but I didnāt this time.
Yeah making a git commit doesnāt merge code much less push it to the networkā¦
š
Nice try. When you say āpushā are you referring to how Satoshi used Santa to deliver updates to nodes around the world?
Yes that is exactly what I meant
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
