pull down to refresh
202 sats \ 4 replies \ @justin_shocknet 5 Aug \ on: lowering minimum relay feerate may be bad for compact block relay - 0xB10C bitcoin
Funny how this sub-sat stuff came about after I started getting vocal about the fake scaling solutions didn't address the cost of unilateral transactions that define ownership (and that only a supply increase or sub-sat fees could scale it)
Threw a grenade in the PR: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33106#issuecomment-3156258686
the final scaling frontier for sovereign ownership
I'm not quite sure I follow this: if mempools are empty and miners are willing to accept whatever paltry fee I attach to my transaction, I may indeed be able to produce a very small (in terms of sats) utxo. But isn't this a somewhat tenuous sovereignty? If fees return even just to the 1 sat per vbyte level, my utxo is stuck, being worth less than the cost to move it. In such a case, is my sovereignty "wait until the fees go down again"?
reply
if mempools
That's the key if, and that's what is now changing.
When you try to calculate how many people can "own" bitcoin it increases when you change your assumptions from 1sat/vb to .1sat/vb
Increasing users = scaling
somewhat tenuous sovereignty?
Many such cases, if you can afford 1sat a byte you're more sovereign than someone that can only afford .1, same is true for 10sat vs. 1sat.
We have no idea what the market will settle on for fees in another 15 years, entirely possible that requires 1000sats/vb to get a tx confirmed.
being worth less than the cost to move it
Yep, whether its dust in the literal sense or practical sense, the supply of <2.1q divided by that amount is the scaling limit in terms of ownership.
When I say it's the final scaling frontier that means its literally the last thing possible from a technical perspective because the supply isn't going to change and distribution/fee rate is a purely market function.
reply
For the uninitated
reply
reply