3 sats \ 1 reply \ @siggy47 9 Apr 2023
I think this article is worth a read. I would be curious to know whether it is technically accurate.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @shibe 9 Apr 2023
Yes but a lot of optimizations seemingly involve turning the 1-in-2-out transaction into a special, optimized version by removing data that isn't needed for that. So these improvements wouldn't apply across the board, and the claimed "free blockspace" increase would also only reach that 1.2MB if every single transaction was a 1-in-2-out.
reply
10 sats \ 0 replies \ @faithandcredit 10 Apr 2023
Somewhat related news the UTXO set seemed to reach 5gb this weekend. An all time high :)
https://statoshi.info/d/000000009/unspent-transaction-output-set?orgId=1&refresh=10m&from=now%2Fy&to=now
reply
1 sat \ 0 replies \ @orthzar 9 Apr 2023
An interesting blog post. But Satoshi cannot be blamed for not knowing that this or that was not a perfect usage of block space. Bitcoin is the first cryptocurrency, and yet it's done extremely well, despite Satoshi's "strange choices."
"We" who's "we"? Go do make the hardfork yourself and try to convince consumers to switch.
But I'm not going to participate in any hadfork, especially one that requires critical code to be modified just to reduce transaction size by 43 bytes.
reply
1 sat \ 1 reply \ @kilianbuhn 9 Apr 2023
Ooof, starting out spicy, aren't we? 🧐🧐
reply
5 sats \ 0 replies \ @WeAreAllSatoshi 9 Apr 2023
Yea holy shit lol I think the author forgot the “stay humble” part of “stay humble, stack sats”
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @LouisSignet 9 Apr 2023
The author is talking about a theoretical design with 20% smaller transaction size.
This would never be included in Bitcoin for compatibility reasons but it's worth exploring for 2-layer side-chains.
reply