pull down to refresh

136 sats \ 6 replies \ @sedited 13 Sep \ parent \ on: Peter Wuille post about dropping OP_RETURN limit bitcoin

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.

write
preview
178 sats \ 5 replies \ @leaf 13 Sep

The cost of storage for a node is currently decreasing.

Unfortunately, I think LibreHans may be resistant to this evidence.

reply
0 sats \ 4 replies \ @LibreHans 13 Sep

You just discovered Moore's law, impressive, nobody ever heard of that before.

reply
136 sats \ 3 replies \ @leaf 13 Sep

It is how it contradicts your "They won't be able to afford nodes, you ruffian!" argument that I particularly like.

reply
0 sats \ 2 replies \ @LibreHans 13 Sep

Were you a big blocker in 2017? How did you not end up using bcash?

reply
100 sats \ 1 reply \ @leaf 13 Sep

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
25 sats \ 0 replies \ @LibreHans 13 Sep

Thanks for clarifying

reply