Upvote if you believe Bitcoin should scale on-chain in addition to second layer solutions
0 sats \ 100 boost \ 21 comments \ @theshanergy 12 Jan 2022 bitcoin
Curious to get peoples temperature here. Do most of you believe that the current max block size limit is acceptable? Do you believe that it should be increased? In a future where Lightning handles most low fee tx, how many normal people are transaction on-chain and what is the average block size?
Discuss.
write
preview
related posts
10 sats \ 12 replies \ @k00b 12 Jan 2022
Sure, if segwit and taproot signature agg are examples of on-chain scaling.
If you mean by making it harder to run full nodes, no.
reply
0 sats \ 11 replies \ @theshanergy OP 12 Jan 2022
Do you believe the block size limit should remain at 1MB forever (other optimizations aside)?
reply
0 sats \ 6 replies \ @k00b 12 Jan 2022
To the extent that I can reason about forever, yes.
If we can scale off-chain, why should we centralize Bitcoin?
reply
0 sats \ 5 replies \ @theshanergy OP 12 Jan 2022
If Bitcoin were to scale on-chain at a similar rate to natural hardware and bandwidth improvements, thus keeing the feasibility of running your own node fixed over time, do you feel that would still somehow lead to additional centralization? Running a Bitcoin full node today is considerably less resource intensive (relatively) than it was back in 09'. Plus, once regular users are priced off the main chain by way of excessive tx fees, why would they run a node in the first place? Shouldn't the cost of transacting on the chain be less than the cost of running a node? What happens when that ceases to be the case?
reply
0 sats \ 4 replies \ @k00b 12 Jan 2022
If Bitcoin were to scale on-chain at a similar rate to natural hardware and bandwidth improvements, thus keeing the feasibility of running your own node fixed over time, do you feel that would still somehow lead to additional centralization?
It would lead to more centralization than would otherwise occur.
Plus, once regular users are priced off the main chain by way of excessive tx fees, why would they run a node in the first place?
This is a presumption. Why sacrifice decentralization for a cooked up hypothetical? Fees are extremely low right now.
Shouldn't the cost of transacting on the chain be less than the cost of running a node?
The cost of hardware only needs to be less or equal to how much you value some consensus rules enduring and verifying that they apply to your coins.
reply
0 sats \ 3 replies \ @theshanergy OP 12 Jan 2022
During the last fee spike I paid fees that amounted to more than the cost of a full node, this is not hypothetical. If Lightning is successful and Bitcoin scales to use as a global unit of account and means of exchange, the Lightning settlements alone will be more than the base layer can handle. As it stands currently Bitcoin is not able to cope with global use as money. What is the solution to this problem, if not additional on-chain capacity?
reply
1 sat \ 2 replies \ @k00b 12 Jan 2022
I'm not an expert here, but the solution I'm most familiar with are Channel Factories.
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @theshanergy OP 12 Jan 2022
Do you think a time will come when regular users are forced to store their value in second layer contracts and the base layer is reserved only for channel factory settlement and large commercial players. ie. banks, governments?
view replies
0 sats \ 3 replies \ @shyfire 12 Jan 2022
I do.
The next attack on bitcoin will be on a nation state level. For example courts forcing bitcoin devs to add backdoors. So if it's not cheap and easy to run a fully validating node, bitcoin will not survive that kind of attack.
reply
0 sats \ 2 replies \ @theshanergy OP 12 Jan 2022
What makes you think that hasn't already happened? What makes you think the blocksize wars weren't a state sponsored attack to keep blocks small and prevent Bitcoin from scaling to global use?
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @shyfire 12 Jan 2022
Because states aren't competent enough to hide their tracks like that. I read Blocksize Wars and it looks like just regular individuals/organizations/companies etc, not states.
reply
1 sat \ 0 replies \ @theshanergy OP 12 Jan 2022
Who do you think sponsored the massive DDOS attacks that targetted non compliant nodes and took entire ISPs offline? Who compromised online communities and systematically banned and silenced anyone who promoted pro blocksize increase positions?
reply
110 sats \ 1 reply \ @jeff 12 Jan 2022
I think there is a high risk the community didn't get this solution figured out perfectly during the blocksize war. Now it's turned political. Which sucks.
I think the bitcoin ecosystem should plan hard forks every 131K blocks (~2.5 years). They should launch like satellites into the unknown. But each one competes with the other until a winner emerges.

Logic
  • Existing stakeholders get a stable standard, they know will always live on if it is indeed the best.
  • Existing owners get a dividend-like concept every 2.5 years
  • Bitcoin Network gets a mechanism to test out new/risky concepts.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @theshanergy OP 12 Jan 2022
I 100% agree with this. If and when (if not already) the core developers are compromised by state or corporate actors, we need a mechanism by which to move the chain out of their hands. Hard forks and multiple competing repositories are the only way to achieve this. Regardless of ones views of the current Core group everyone should be in favor of scheduled hardforks for the reasons above.
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @cointastical 13 Jan 2022
How many on-chain transactions did you perform to post this?
reply
4 sats \ 0 replies \ @theshanergy OP 13 Jan 2022
None, though to be fair this site is custodial and centralized. A similar thing could be done with fiat and existing legacy banking infrastructure. That said, if I cash out any sats they will go through a lightning node, and eventually end up in my own non custodial bitcoin wallet. There will need to be at least one on-chain transaction for me to close my channel and own my bitcoin. The main chain cannot handle the throughput necessary for everyone in the world to transact as much as I do, even if only for closing lightning channels.
reply
0 sats \ 3 replies \ @jeff 12 Jan 2022
Here's my 2 sats.
Fast forward two halvings. Block rewards are 75% lower.
Fees or price has to climb materially from current levels for Bitcoin to be as secure as is today. If block space isn't scarce, fees won't climb. If we don't have enough fees, then Bitcoin can be hacked if the price is low.
reply
0 sats \ 2 replies \ @theshanergy OP 12 Jan 2022
There are two ways for total fee security to increase:
  1. Number of on-chain users remains fixed, but they pay higher fees per transaction.
or
  1. Number of on-chain users increases and they pay the same or less per transaction.
Both options create more security for the network, but one cripples the chain to actual real-world use.
reply
1 sat \ 1 reply \ @btcschellingpt 13 Jan 2022 freebie
or
As Luke DashJr has previously suggested, reduce the blocksize to 300k thereby increasing scarcity for blockspace which would consequently drive L1 fees higher, and reduce/extend low cost operation of bitcoin nodes.