reply on: Peter Wuille post about dropping OP_RETURN limit \ stacker news ~bitcoin

pull down to refresh

21 sats \ 6 replies \ @TheCharlatan 5h \ 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.

21 sats \ 5 replies \ @leaf 5h

The cost of storage for a node is currently decreasing.

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

0 sats \ 4 replies \ @LibreHans 5h

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

21 sats \ 3 replies \ @leaf 5h

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

0 sats \ 2 replies \ @LibreHans 5h

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

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @leaf 4h

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.

25 sats \ 0 replies \ @LibreHans 4h

Thanks for clarifying