pull down to refresh
"but 110 specifically leaves carve-outs for abuse such that it has all the hallmarks of controlled opposition... Luke supporting Covenants, acquiescence to Taproot at large.. etc." I'm not sure what you mean by that, to be honest. Covenants aren't inherently bad in my view.
To tackle your direct question: I believe Bitcoin has all the bones it needs. The base layer clearly can't scale to 8 billion+ people. Layer 2s will be necessary. My view is optimizing the base chain with as efficient an instruction set as possible, and optimizing transaction sizes to be as small as possible are the way to improve scalability and increase the ability for people to take self-custody on the base chain. Again, I don't mind covenants for that purpose.
I'm not pro-ossification. Eventually something will break, or something external will need to be reacted to.
Ultimately, I'm a pragmatist. A more "maximalist" position (like reduced block size, The Cat, remove Segwit discount) would just get laughed out of the room. I think 110 barely has enough chance of succeeding as it is. If it were any harsher, we'd have a URSF on our hands. We might have a URSF next time, no matter what.
That's a lot of oofs in one post, can take that elsewhere if you'd like to be corrected
We have that in common, definitely need more of this perspective in Bitcoin
I find it surprising though you support 110. I am sympathetic to the narrative for it and think Core is reckless/captured, but 110 specifically leaves carve-outs for abuse such that it has all the hallmarks of controlled opposition... Luke supporting Covenants, acquiescence to Taproot at large.. etc.
Does your background suggest to you that Bitcoin has long been feature complete as money and only hardening is appropriate, that added "expressiveness" presents asymmetric downside rather than upside?
If so, why not a more maximalist position that 110 does not address? One that rugs the crypto-theater kids rather than leaves the door wide open to them?