pull down to refresh
21 sats \ 11 replies \ @leaf 6h \ parent \ on: Peter Wuille post about dropping OP_RETURN limit bitcoin
Guess I'm very stupid then.
The utxo set will eventually be in the terabytes. But that will take a long time to happen, and at that point storage will probably be way cheaper and bitcoin itself may have changed radically.
At the end of the blocksize wars, everyone knew that small blocks were better. I think after this knots drama has played out, everyone will know that you cannot control what someone else uses blockspace for.
It's going to take some people time to get that fact, especially those on some emotional crusade. Others will sell up and declare bitcoin a failure. But bitcoin will march on without the Dashjrs and Mechanics, just like it marched on without the Vers and Andresens.
Guess I'm very stupid then.
If you like to think so.
I think it just shows that you can't relate to people who can't afford more frequent hardware upgrades, and that you don't understand more data hurts decentralization of nodes.
The more core keeps going in that direction, the more likely it is that bitcoin will march on without them, more than 20% of nodes already seem to think so. It takes forever to build trust, and only seconds to destroy it.
reply
You really beleaguer this pointer over and over again, but hardware costs are hardly a prohibiting factor for people to run nodes. At least not for as long as the block size remains where it is.
reply
reply
You just discovered Moore's law, impressive, nobody ever heard of that before.
reply
reply
Were you a big blocker in 2017? How did you not end up using bcash?
reply
I don't think spam is meaningfully increasing the utxo set size - especially now that there are no new suckers for the brc token scam. That's different to big blocks where the utxo set would grow fast or even unchecked.
I'm no expert, and there are nuances, but I will say that I believe the block size increase with segwit may have been a mistake.
If I thought node cost and/or utxo set growth rate was a problem, I'd push for a blocksize reduction. I think there are quite a few devs who would support it. Far more than filters, where Luke is basically by himself.
reply
Thanks for clarifying
I think it just shows that you can't relate to people who can't afford more frequent hardware upgrades, and that you don't understand more data hurts decentralization of nodes.
Right now, spam isn't meaningfully increasing the utxo set at all - in fact blocks are often not full.
And in the future we'll probably have something like utreexo that means the average person doesn't need to store the whole utxo set. I think in another 2-3 decades we'll all be running nodes on our phones.
In my opinion, if you're concerned for the poorest of the world, forget their ability to afford a node, and focus on their ability to own a utxo. That's where I'd say the real rub is.
It takes forever to build trust, and only seconds to destroy it.
With social media, it takes seconds to convince the masses of anything.
It's convinced you and many others that the vast majority of bitcoin devs are corrupt. Now that will genuinely hurt bitcoin development, when you make devs choose between death threats and slander or a cushy, well-paid corp job. No good deed goes unpunished, unfortunately.
reply
Right now, spam isn't meaningfully increasing the utxo set at all - in fact blocks are often not full.
If you only consider size and ignore how much compute it takes to sync the chain after all the recent spam, we can't really have a meaningful conversation.
In my opinion, if you're concerned for the poorest of the world, forget their ability to afford a node, and focus on their ability to own a utxo. That's where I'd say the real rub is.
Thanks for admitting that you don't care about node decentralization.
It's convinced you and many others
Social media didn't convince me of anything, the communication and actions of core devs did.