pull down to refresh
100 sats \ 24 replies \ @Scoresby OP 27 Oct \ parent \ on: BIP 444: Reduced Data Temporary Softfork bitcoin
Yeah, clearly the "follow the law" freedom money fork proposal is what we should do.
The cult has lost its "community" moniker since 2017, doubling down on defending the worst possible decisions and individual "representatives."
I left the Shitereum community just to end up witnessing another form of it being birthed. No fucking thanks.
reply
reply
If this goes through, Blockstream Coin basically becomes Shitoshi's Venture with detrimentally small blocks rather than detrimentally "make them whatever size you want" blocks.
It's funny how the Cashers became vindicated in all their claims about their currency being the true Bitcoin, alongside everything else they've said for nearly a decade... all they need was lots of time for the corporate and governmental subversion to eat away at what little remained of its facade.
reply
I don't think I understand what you are saying. There's nothing wrong with small blocks and Bitcoin is doing just fine. The only problem is people running around acting like we need an emergency soft fork.
reply
My viewpoint comes down to seeing years of seeing ongoing efforts to sidestep the actual solution to lack of scalability (increasing the block size to 2017-19 BCH levels), and instead try to push Lightning (which Blockstream alongside other paid off and/or deluded developers pivoted towards after their forceful pushing of Liquid failed at the time) as the solution, when you'd be lucky to get even 5% of BSC users to adopt at a self-custodial level without getting wrecked at either a management or application level (bugs can fuck over even the most technically versed of users).
That's on top of disingenuous arguments claiming that raising the block size would kill decentralization (lol) of BSC despite Bitcoin having no size limits originally, and the piece of code that introduced such as a temporary fix for then-real issues around double spending and blockchain drift in 2010 (which is something I touch on in an article that'll be published When It's Ready™ to @lain)... and then raising it an entire megabyte via SegWit and Taproot later on.
When I first jumped ship from one shitcoin to what I believed wasn't another shitcoin in 2021, it was under the presumption that what I thought was Bitcoin was intended to be better money solely without any added fluff or technical excess; you can even find early comments on this account and my Lain account where I joke about not being a maxi for whatever reason(s) I'd give on a per-comment basis.
I'd never be one of any currency and/or shitcoin, but especially not BSC, because I can now see how fundamentally compromised it's been by those who have no interest in it truly displacing the banking system or fiat. No one can force anyone else to pick up on that, the cognitive dissonance has to wear off naturally.
reply
sidestep the actual solution to lack of scalability (increasing the block size to 2017-19 BCH levels)
A block size increase scales transaction throughput linearly: 10x bigger blocks => 10x more transactions per block
You think we can scale bitcoin by continuing to increase block size, for example until we can match VISA with 65,000 tps?
reply
I'd rather it be one agreed upon (unlikely to occur) size that's implemented in a way that ensures both compatibility and minimum breakage; BCH is at 32 MB block sizes now, so having BSC at just half of that at 16 MB would do so much for scalability, including having most (if not all) of Lightning's functionality on-chain.
reply
How many transactions per second can bitcoin handle with 16 MB blocks?
(Or maybe I should say confirmations per second.)