GUESS WHO TAUGHT ME something new today: nostr:npub1a2cww4kn9wqte4ry70vyfwqyqvpswksna27rtxd8vty6c74era8sdcw83a! I hadn’t thought of 👇 before but it’s logical that #Bitcoin will become more decentralized over time bc it keeps getting easier/more accessible to run a node (p339 of #BrokenMoney). I ❤️ reading engineers’ explanations of #bitcoin! 
Discussion
Respectfully, how did you not think of this? This was the entire thesis and importance behind the block size war!
Yes but not expressed in the way nostr:npub1a2cww4kn9wqte4ry70vyfwqyqvpswksna27rtxd8vty6c74era8sdcw83a expressed it—ie, that node requirements increase more slowly than advances in computer processing, storage & bandwidth. The big blockers didn’t express it in those specific terms during the block size war either—they expressed it in terms of network scalability/transaction throughput. I get your point though—the topics are related, but I hadn’t thought of it in the way that Lyn expressed it here. Thanks!
Can’t wait to be running my node off a tablet! 💪
As a good example just look at how cheap storage has become
nostr:npub1uyz4w2w4rcphk0q5arzkutrecgscxwzajj4dkvh9mjyqjtxslm6qea8632 you should join the nostr:npub1hxfkcs9gvtm49702rmwn2aeuvhkd2w6f0svm4sl84g8glhzx5u9srk5p6t community! Lots of learning and discussions on the leading edge of sovereign node running 😃
We would love that! 💜
I underlined the whole book
This was always one of the most important considerations: Will technology capacity grow faster than node demands? If we tip in the direction of "ever more expensive, with time" even just a little bit, it could be extremely bad on a 30-50 year timeline.
There is no possible way to perfectly balance, our only chance is to be extremely conservative and err on the low cost side. Bitcoin node costs must always increase slower than technological capacity. If it can, then running the validation software for the entire system will only get easier and easier & keep the global monetary system secure indefinitely, while our ability and improvements to more decentralized communication networks, encrypted and private communications, and new protocol layers will compound Bitcoin's ability to stay securely independent.
As long as they are not custodial nodes.
One question I asked without a good answer is what happens when large node software operators like Umbrel decide to sneak in changes without letting people opt out?
Any sufficiently large node software provider could essentially act on behalf of its users.
Custodial-anything can always be a risk.
Also the complex adaptive system always finds its way in general. Such malicious behavior may hurt Bitcoin for a short term to some extent, however will be soon punished by the market and the market will search for alternatives. I think Bitcoin the status quo seems to be resilient enough.
For example, I remember that some months ago, there was a outrageous response from the community about Umbrel's auto-update feature 😉
I don't believe they have auto updates. If they do that is an issue.
Node - yes
But that's only verification
I don't think mining as the actual operation of blockchain follows the same rule. Does it?
look into zerosync. full node hardware requirements are going to go way way down. https://zerosync.org/
👀 
I think that’s true but there could be a caveat. Nodes only matter if they represent users who hold their coins in self custody. If the future brings centralization (because people can’t, don’t want to, or aren’t allowed to hold their own coins) then perhaps nodes won’t decentralize as they should.
This is why the most important unsolved problem in bitcoin is getting users to hold coins in self custody. I worry the ETFs and financial institutions may cause further centralization.
Financial institutions, like Custodia, could innovate with solutions to separate custody from control. Like the way stratum v2 separates hash power from block construction — to decentralize control. Just a thought.
This is why 1 MB block size matters, and 10 minute block time matters, so #Bitcoin’s technical specs don’t grow faster than Moore’s Law.
Big brain Cait. 🤣
Since I deleted X, my wish was hearing more from nostr:npub1uyz4w2w4rcphk0q5arzkutrecgscxwzajj4dkvh9mjyqjtxslm6qea8632 and nostr:npub1a2cww4kn9wqte4ry70vyfwqyqvpswksna27rtxd8vty6c74era8sdcw83a It’s happening!!
Wow! I need to get this book
🖐
🎤
https://www.swanbitcoin.com/a-look-at-the-lightning-network/
First time I had seen this was in her lightning network article. I still see this as one of the best arguments against block size change.
Granted, I wasn't really around for block size wars, but when it comes up now, I have never seen others making that point as a case for Bitcoin. I'm surprised I don't see many re-iterate this point at all. It seems like a linchpin in Bitcoin's
Lyn keeps shouting the important stuff until people catch on.
If so, why this measurement:
https://21.ninja/unique-reachable-nodes/total-node-change/
Please provide rationale. 
Blockchain bloat is a total disaster. As are #transaction #fees. Drop back to pre TapRoot versions of #Bitcoin #core ASAP. Before more damage is done..😏
Except this doesn't apply to mining as well, where it's getting less and less feasible to run your own hardware.
Yes hands down a really good book.My book is full of notes and is is going to be a good reference book in the future with all the links to other books.
Certainly a good point. Perhaps bitcoin was designed to keep pace with technological advancements. The path chosen has been wisely conservative. However, recent spam attacks are disruptive to creating new layered solutions and also for the poorest people that want to save in bitcoin.
What bitcoin has at this point is lots of options, going forward. I think a modest incremental increase in block size has a few advantages:
- maintains the decetnralized node network that is in place, and will just need pruning or some disk improvements
- makes disruptive spam attacks more expensive
- allows the poorest in the world to more easily participate on chain
- allows innovation between layers to occur more easily and cheaply
- we've not had a block increase since 2017 and 2mb, 4mb, 8mb were left on the table for the medium term
Something for the next epoch, perhaps.
One of the biggest problems with any block size change is that there’s no schelling point regarding what to change it to or when to change it. Which means consensus will be difficult to achieve.
We might run a node on our mobile devices. Should be easily possible today. Will cost near nothing in the future.