20 sats \ 1 reply \ @02f8459cbd 14 Oct 2022
Not much, what's UtreeXO with you?
reply
1 sat \ 0 replies \ @TheBTCManual OP 15 Oct 2022
Lol node much going on these days
reply
10 sats \ 3 replies \ @felix 14 Oct 2022
So have I understood it correctly...
- New type of node possible
- Decrease in Blockchain Size (for new node type)
- Increase in communication size
Question is – could this have a centralizing vector? Not entirely sure...
reply
10 sats \ 2 replies \ @TheBTCManual OP 14 Oct 2022
Well we already have full nodes and pruned nodes, lightning nodes, I don't see why you can't have other nodes too that want to do something differently as long as its all opt in.
Perhaps you want to run the full archival, that's one layer, pruned is another layer and UtreeXO could be another layer
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @felix 15 Oct 2022
That's a fair point.
In that case, it's a mistake to suggest that "we are going to move to UTreeXO" as claimed by the author.
The new nodes would really just serve a very small audience. It also shouldn't be recommended for existing full-node operators.
Overall, I really like the idea – the name is dope too. It's sadly not that impactful.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @TheBTCManual OP 15 Oct 2022
I think selling people on lets all move to UtreeXO is going to be a tough sell, we also don't know how something like PIs and how cheap hard drive space becomes over time making the expansion of the blockchain not such an issue and if that will mean we have bigger blocks in the future
I also wonder how things will change with things like channel factories, making it easier to manage channels without touching the chain, Fedimint and LN channels on liquid, there is so much going on to scale bitcoin so who knows what wins or how these solutions all work together
reply