pull down to refresh

108 sats \ 5 replies \ @Mechanic2 20h \ parent \ on: BIP110 AMA w/Mechanic bitcoin

My focus is always on decentralization at the node level. To me the approach taken by Core (and the industry in being largely unconcerned with it) represented a deviation from that priority and everything else is downstream of that. Decentralized mining/self custody/sovereign MoE usage (no KYC/AML etc) are all over if most people aren't doing this stuff with their own nodes.

write
compose
1 sat \ 4 replies \ @gollum47 20h

(i asked this elsewhere, but it's relevant here) why not just do smaller blocks? that would make it easier for people to run nodes and we clearly aren't pressed for blockspace...

reply
101 sats \ 3 replies \ @Mechanic2 20h

I want to do that too. But it doesn't do anything about the concerns about unacceptable media storage.

reply
1 sat \ 2 replies \ @gollum47 20h

when you say "unacceptable media storage" do you mean illegal media or a resource issue (too much data)?

reply
1 sat \ 1 reply \ @Mechanic2 19h

Neither, though you can assume the former. It's stuff that'd make me say "I don't want to run a node anymore" or even "I expect other people will trash their node over this".

reply
22 sats \ 0 replies \ @gollum47 19h

i've never checked what's in my blocks folder. there could be plans for an atom bomb in there for all i care. i have a hard time putting myself in the shoes of a bitcoiner who is willing to turn off their node because of the arrangement of bits in that folder. seems precious.

reply