Agreed about decentralisation.
Also the 21M coin cap is another key feature.
The blocksize is locked into code requiring a 93% consensus to change (hard fork). I don't think this will ever happen, or could ever happen, but if it could, providing it was still possible for anybody with a couple of hundred dollars of spare cash to run a node, then I think there may be good reasons to do this.
Roger Ver, is that you?
You caught me, I'm more than Roger though, call me Roger Moore 😂
Roger, Roger.. We need you... I expect a block size increase might be something to look at in the future if blocks get congested.
https://video.nostr.build/3090cf92f9f56ab4e209c6500e3c7a259c1b5d05510f2da7bc962048e28526e1.mp4
You think it a coincidence that the Bitcoin transaction limit is 007 TPS ? 😂
i mean while mining is centralized, and core has the monopoly and just making changes on impulse anything can happen.
we need to make the space more separated more decentralized to lock things in place.
never sacrifice decentralization for anything else. because then we have nothing.
i think currently we are not in an ideal place. ideally node runners shouldn't be people who wanna support the network and relay txs.
node runners should be everyday bitcoin users. and for that node running should optimize/compress storage/bandwidth better, and we need far better ux.
our baseline for running a node shouldn't be "anybody with a couple of hundred dollars". baseline should be, anyone with an average laptop or phone that they are already using daily.
Luckily, as the blocksize wars showed us, miners aren't as powerful as they think.
Despite the miners pushing through larger blocks, the devs won by being cleverer.
In the OP_RETURN battle, node runners are having the say.
Bitcoin is balanced, it needs consensus across miners, devs and node runners.
This is a good thing.
