There are only 2 ways to make Bitcoin scalable and fungible:
1. You upgrade Bitcoin with the best tech out there, accept the tradeoffs
2. You use other networks that tokenize bitcoin, such as Beam/DarkFi/Zano. You get the features for BTC, but don’t use the Bitcoin network
But a popular number 3 is:
You pretend that the problems don’t exist, Bitcoin is already perfect and it’s the fault of users for wanting to use Bitcoin or having greater expectations from it
You are retarded, you know this right?
For discussions sake, what's wrong with Vlad's statement? Or are you just name calling to be mean?
I like the idea of a phased approach with something like ecash for tiny amounts, (like pocket change), then lightning for medium amounts (like notes or stash at home) then on chain for large sums.
Ideally automatically transferring between stages depending on amounts, maybe I'll work on that.
You've probably mentioned this on your show, but if you were benevolent dictator for a period of time, what would you do? I assume drive chains would be priority 1 for you?
I’d let the builders launch their projects and compete for users.
Drivechains, ZK rollups, weird sidechain ideas… bring them on, let’s get more people to use bitcoin!
I've walked myself in some weird circles thinking about this. I think you had an episode with John Carvalho a while back and I really find myself falling back to his position (or what I think is his position is)
I just hate gatekeeping beyond a reasonable point
Some tech has been around for many years, has been tested on altcoins or testnets, but due to politics we’re not gonna get it.
I definitely get that. My biggest annoyance in the bitcoin space is when someone says they expect X outcome, but all their actions are Y. If they said they wanted X and did X things, or Y and Y things, I'd be fine with it. The contradictions just annoy me.
Anyway, no matter what you want to do, no matter how optimized and tested it is, will get shot down by a dozen people saying “there is no consensus” and a couple of Core maintainers who won’t merge anything “controversial”.
You're probably right. I don't realistically see anything getting through without some crisis prompting it.
Why is it when I respond to this criticism when you levy it, I get ignored? I even watched your Roger Ver interview because I thought Uncle Rockstar was being unfair.
Sorry sir, I don’t spend too much time here.
All three can coexist.
Mempool is empty, where's the scaling demand?
spark.info
