He lost the argument when he claimed soft forks he doesn't agree with are mandatory
Discussion
None of this matters. The idea should be good enough to stand on its own.
Agreed! nostr:npub1w72nkwnrhncuwjxmmmh3px74dhjgcv8de5nayzfygrp6mj33e96sumwyhg's opinions have no influence on my node, thankfully 😉
Sidechain scaling and merge mining has been around since satoshi was writing on bitcoin talk.
Namecoin in 2011, Blockstream sidechain white paper in 2014 by Graham Maxwell, Paul Sztorc Bip300 idea in 2015, Sergio Lerner Rootstock white paper in 2016.
Then everyone started fighting of blocksize in 2017 and moved toward lightning as the panacea scaling solution.
It’s now 2023 and it’s clear lightning has been an uphill battle. They only way to make it user friendly is via custodians and have third party LSPs providing liquidity.
So it makes sense to look for alternative ideas rather than be myopic.
What are you thoughts on blocksize?
Keep mainchain the same. Then use sidechains to scale.
So you would have been a "toxic maxi" during the block size wars?
I am not a toxic person. I also see bitcoin as experiment that could still fail.
I put it in quotes for a reason...
Derail
Ideas don't stand on their own. People adopt and enforce them.
Also it's a debate. The argument i am referring to is the statement within the debate, not the debate itself. So your lack or relevant counter-statements, and instead just derailing into comedy defacto means i won. Just like the monero/asic debate. I do enjoy these chats, dan. We will open your mind one day.