“I prefer decentralization. Which is also why I dont see knee jerk reactions as the solution as they often come with unintended consequences. Changes to standardness rules for relaying but not consensus rules to match makes the network more centralizing to miners.”
Why make it more centralizing to miners?
At its worst, those do not change anything in the dynamic behavior of the existing Bitcoin system.
(“knee jerk reaction”: how should I understand that phrase?)
Exactly.
I DONT want to centralize more to miners. Hence, I dont want to incentivize that by making people have to work with miners directly for their transactions. If we cant relay, then we lose censorship resistance.
You can’t lose what you already lost and that is decentralization of mining activity (via proxy popular big mining pools).
If you would want to keep mining entities decentralized, then you should incentivize regular Bitcoin node decentralization and adoption. But of course, that is not your view for Bitcoin.
I could argue that Inscriptions aided decentralization as more people had to learn how to run nodes.. indeed I helped set some people up and provided some early guides on the process which are available in my github repo.
It also solidified taproot which was floundering since activation.
