The only reason to run a full node is if you are interacting with the base chain.

If a single interaction with the base chain costs more than setting up and running a full node for a year or two, then you don't really gain any decentralization benefit from keeping the current block size limit.

If/when base chain fees pass that threshold, increasing the block size, moving to side chains, or some other transaction scaling method will be inevitable.

If you haven't been paying attention, you probably should be.

Core fucked up. They are shirking their historical mandate to fix exploits, while having opened the door in the first place to said exploit.

Not confidence inspiring. Especially for any future "upgrades".

I'm conservative when it comes to the one and only shot we have at a fair decentralized currency. I'd like to not have to worry about Bitcoin for decades. Call it ossification but I'm with Carvalho when he says Taproot opened up a lot more potential than what's been explored thus far. I'm against any further soft forks for a few years at least.

When it comes to how the blockchain is used, I trust fees as the transaction gatekeeper more than anything else. That being said feel free to run what you want on your node.

I don't think ossification and improvement are mutually exclusive.

A better way to pose the dilemma IMO,

ossification camp = ain't broke, don't fix we change btc protocol camp = ain't broke, fix anyway

ossification and change. ossification is like evolution. Sometimes there are very minute changes in organisms. It's not always adaptation.

Are you familiar with the Blocksize Wars?

The short version is, back in 2017 a large number of bitcoiners thought bitcoin wasn't going to be able to continue to scale because of the "small" number of transactions that can fit into a block, which can only be mined about every 10 minutes...

The problem is, increasing the blocksize decreases overall security. There was a massive clash in the bitcoin community about this, leading to a hard fork, which became Bitcoin Cash...

Apparently some people are being vocal about wanting a larger blocksize again, but we already know how that plays out - Bitcoin Cash failed.

If you're interested in getting the full history, I'd highly recommend this book. Really great info in here on how changes are made to the protocol. https://www.amazon.com/Blocksize-War-controls-Bitcoins-protocol/dp/B08YQMC2WM

Is this statement an obvious fact?

In nature, there are many examples where little to no change occurred in hundreds of millions of years: Sharks, horse-shoe crabs, cockroaches, etc. They reached "evolution perfection" or to put in a less flattering perspective: They have reached genetic Ossification. That is, they found a place where change is simply not required because it just works. I recognize that these species named have an inherent selection bias because they are the ones that survived. Countless other creatures that could not adapt perished.

I know the idea of ossification in software development is considered a dead end. And for apps, this is largely true. However, when we talk of Internet protocols that are crucial for its survival: DNS, SMTP, BGP and others, serious care should be considered before any change is implemented.

Few people are saying, "let's tinker with DNS to improve it", and there are fewer cases where such changes get implemented. But they do happen after very careful and considered review. And they happen very quickly when survival is at stake (major security breaches e.g.). DNS works so well that we seldom think about it. Bitcoin is not an app. We should study and follow the trajectory of change management that other crucial Internet protocols have undergone. If a change were made to DNS with unforeseen catastrophic consequences, the Internet could shut down. If a change were made to Bitcoin with unforeseen catastrophic consequences, the Internet of Money™ would shut down. Perhaps that is the very reason why we don't "tinker and make changes" to crucial Internet protocols.

From the context in the thread it appears that Luke thinks being against gimping script to fight ordinals is to be equated with being a big blocker.

I dunno guy, but between somebody running a full node for me because it's impossible to run one at home and somebody holding my keys for me because it's impossible to pay miner fees, I'd rather have someone run a node.

It's been 7 years, the necessities of the market are not the same as they used to be, our internet is a lot better, block propagation over clearnet is a lot faster, we have things as, SPV, ZK-Proof and assumeUTXO.

It might really be time to get those bigger blocks rolling, the mempool is telling us that it needs bigger blocks.

P.S: Call me "big blocker" or "shitcoiner" all you want, the technical reality of Bitcoin is completely independent or your philosophical opinion and mine, you all will need to prune your 1TB external SSD connected to a raspi 4 in next 2 years anyways.

Lol were we not kind enough to let big blockers have two shots at failure, just give it a test already, you can bring back the big blocker debate in 20 years

There's a group of some of the most active Core devs who are heavily against any spam filtering, shut down any discussion about filters, and close PRs which seek to fix the spam problem.

We're seeing the attack vector play out IMO. It's always been the case that if you can capture 5 or 6 key people, you can influence the direction of Bitcoin development.

I don't know if any Core devs have been captured as such, but the culture has certainly changed (by their own admission) from one which patches exploits, to one which panders to miner earnings above all other considerations (again, by their own admission).

I think this is dangerous, and I would like to see other node implementations which give the user control over the transactions they want to propagate in the mempool gaining more market share, such as Knots.

Further, I hope more and more miners point their hashing to Ocean Mining, which gives individual miners the option to select their preferred "block template", with the option to not include any of the transactions which take advantage of the spam exploits in the block.

The bigger picture is that the developments above would add to Bitcoin's decentralisation, reduce attack vectors, and give individual users more sovereignty over their participation in the network.

Hopefully Luke is going to go fix Ethereum to get all the big blockers focused on bad ideas over there. Solana seems to be attracting a lot of shitcoiners.

I actually feel very conflicted about this.

Naturally I think there's tendency for the community to be against major change. why change when it runs and risking the long term price action we have.

And miners who are now investing millions for future profit would be growing risk averse.

And how many of us actually understand the full scope of the changes.

Imo I think Bitcoin is in a bit of stalemate. It's now too big to implement some changes. It should have taken a lot more risk when it's smaller.

I feel too many are worshipping Satoshi as the gospel, but he's not perfect and there were things that were fixed.