21 sats \ 3 replies \ @pako 11 Dec 2023 \ on: Inscriptions: the cure is worse than the disease bitcoin
I think it's time we talk seriously about a blocksize increase, CTVs and Drivechains.
IMO it's stupid to have something that is too valuable but you can't move because there's a technical choke-point that nobody cared to fix.
Not everyone will be able to use Lightning in a self-custodian way, and a lot of people who own Bitcoin won't be able to move it because it will be economically unfeasable, if we continue on this path Bitcoin will go form "Available 24/7" to "Available once a month to the average joe", which beats the purpose.
Sincerely, it's necessary that we rethink the "settlement layer" thesis when the systems we have in place to help Bitcoin scale are, either unreliable (LN), incomplete (Ark), Federated (Liquid, RSK), or custodial (exchanges).
Taproot allows for better on-chain scaling solutions such as rollups and zk proof, and we are already activating assumeUTXO on Core, nobody really needs to run a full node and those who already do, will me willing to spend the money to keep their nodes running.
I think this conversation has to take place again, whether we like it or not.
deleted by author
reply
I see where you're coming from.
I don't know exactly what this means in this context, could you be more clear?
Now, I also don't know how this should be tackled, my proposal would be to increase the block size dynamically and algorithmically, something that works this way:
Blocks with heavier transactions are smaller to reduce spam, while blocks with lighter transactions can be bigger to promote 1in1uto TXs and while not killing the inscription of arbitrary data, disincentivizing it; also, bigger blocks will be needed for quantum resistant public keys (choosing a boogie man here, but they are closing in faster than anticipated).
Activating the driverchains proposal would help a lot with this as well, we could limit the functionality of the main chain and yet let the spammers "spam Bitcoin" without us having to run it.
And CTVs, well, I don't even have to argue in favour of them, if anyone thinks CTVs are a negative most surely they are simply conspiratorial or a purist who doesn't want change or progress, only vindication.
reply
deleted by author
reply