Listening to "The Blocksize War," currently. I just finished "Hijacking Bitcoin" a couple days ago, too. All that was going on right as I was still a newbie, so it's really good to learn the history. All things said, I think I have been approaching a balanced stance on block size.

Keeping 1MB ad infinitum won't sustain a global self custody future, yet fee pressure is necessary for stability and security. If we are to increase, it'll have to be real strict rules, like the rate of increase must be tight, the consensus must be near complete, etc.

In the future, we may have blocks that today look like what big blockers advocate, but they'll be succinct and packed with high value transactions, maintaining channels, supporting L2s, etc. When the users are there, a fee death spiral won't be an issue. The getting there must be done with extreme caution.

Like the old adage goes, before tearing down a fence, be sure it's not been erected to keep in a bull.

#bitcoin #blocksize #feelingBullish #lightning

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Did you know, that this book is ot the reality ? And that is because we want and have smaller blocks.

Its more like the industry wanted to own #bitcoin and so they created #btcchash

Thats the green one.

Please study more.

Add it stands, if the world started using bitcoin today, it would be multiple decades between transactions per person. That's not enough throughput. The small block position wasn't "1MB forever." Have you read the book?

The reason for the "1MB forever" position is a result of needing to protect Bitcoin, not because it's the best blocksize. Why not halve the blocks and say 512kB? If smaller is better, than why not just a header? You need transaction throughput, and the war was not over the exact size but the pace of change, game theory and incentives, the role of user nodes, and the rules about updates.