This is a communist approach. The free market approach is whoever pays the most gets the block space.
Discussion
No, you are simply gay.
I'm confused, I thought bitcoin was a payment system. Now it has become whatever the free market wants to use it for?
Don't you think btc price will collapse if it becomes just another chain to store files?
Anyway in the end we need to see what the nodes decide
It's not up to the nodes, it's not up to miners, it's not up to developers. It's up to the set of economic participants who accept bitcoin as payment.
If Bitcoin's value as censorship resistant money is worth less than it's capacity to store data then we as Bitcoiners have failed.
If the only answer we can come up with is censorship, we've already lost.
Ok I see your point and understand it. But this sudden and controversial change seems like saying "ok btc has failed as money because not enough ppl spend it and accept it. Then let's open up and make it easier to use btc for other uses (data storage) and let's see if we can survive like this".
Why make such a change/statement in such a positive moment where btc is spreading and so many services/infrastructures are being built around/on it? it feels strange to change course like this in this positiv e moment.
I am extrememly puzzled by the timing of this change, and the way the change has been pushed and approved in such short time and it has been depicted as unanimous when it is clearly controversial as fuck
I've spent less than 15 minutes looking at this debate, but can already see it's basically the same kind of debate as rbf, so it's not worth investing much time into it. Looks like bike shedding to me.
It brings mempool filtering in line with consensus rules, which is needed for mempool to remain relevant long term (otherwise other transaction markets will replace it).
This has no consequence over whether or not bitcoin is used as money or as some kind of permanent storage - the market determines how to price those use cases.
If we want bitcoin to be used as money, we need to start producing seriously valuable goods and services that the market will kill for. Since we are bitcoiners and we only accept bitcoin, the broader market that wants what we produce must adopt it. To put it another way, a bitcoin standard just means that society is dependent on bitcoiners to produce everything.
yes I agree with what you said, but don't you find it odd the way the change has been proposed, pushed and approved in such short time frame?
don't you find odd how core handled opposing views and censured them? and why all of a sudden core stopped caring about btc as money transfer, and now they care more about what the market wants?
it all seems so fishy, all this happening all of a sudden and in this way...
I'm not a big fan of core, and I don't run their implementation anymore. But I also don't believe this particular action is malevolent, some of the things that some of the core guys have done certainly is though.
thanks for he convo man much appreciated. I see this change as a very important one that can have big consequences and I'm super worried, but I see that this is talked so little on btc "socials" almost like it's no big deal at all....either I'm paranoid or simply wrong
It's OK to be paranoid đź«‚
I need to know this “bike shedding” analogy
It's not hard to understand. Shitcoiners paid off some core devs to turn Bitcoin into another shitcoin. We should have paid the devs more. That's the free market at work.
I also thought about this option, but was it really this simple all along? btc survived all this time when was enough to bribe a few devs at core to end it all?
Either core is right and this is actually good long term btc and we (opposition) are retarded, or they have been corrupted (but how? devs are already full of btc and rich as fuck, is there really no end to greed?)
Also, was btc this fragile all along?
Anti-fragility comes from constant push back to unwanted changes. If we become complacent and accept everything core devs do, while they tell us "this is too complicated for non-devs to have a say" then yes, it will be that fragile. The dev community seems to be very poor. They are constantly complaining about lack of funding (I don't doubt it), and there are great organizations like open sats that provide funding. But there will always be well funded VCs that can provide more than charities. Also when there is one dominant client (i. e. Core) and few alternatives, that is also a fragile situation. The main focus now imo should be funding for alternatives to core.
what do you think is gonna happen now?
1) nodes will push back and most of them will either move to knots or NOT update to new core versions that have this change
2) this change is actually not going to bring any issue and we are just too paranoid
3) this change will create spam attacks making it unfeasable to use btc for money transactions, and core will step back and re-instate limit of 80kb?
4) btc as money transactions is dead and it has been captured as a store of value only
I can't believe that the big banks/institutions that have started heavily investing in btc will let the price fall now. Or maybe this mess is a plan to make btc price bottom so the big guys can buy super cheap before really pushing it?
None of those exactly. I think there will be a lot more spam in the short term but that it will mostly be priced out due to demand for the monetary use case in the long run. This is one of the arguments in favor of the change, and I don't necessarily disagree with it. I think that a few concerned people will run knots but the vast majority will stay with core and update to the latest release. Bitcoin will continue to be the best money in the world, albeit with more spam. Shitcoiners will scam a lot of people and make a lot of money. Life will go on. My problem is that they are removing optionality that node runners currently have, and despite the confident claims to the contrary, this change is almost certainly going to have unforseen consequences. I will not run a node that takes away my ability to configure this limit. I might have been convinced to turn it off, but at this point the response from core leads me to think there is a hidden agenda. Peter Todd is coming for the 21M cap, and this is a stepping stone. But that's just my paranoid theory.