pull down to refresh
19 sats \ 2 replies \ @llamabyte 21 Dec 2024 \ parent \ on: Paul Sztorc on Activating Drivechains via CUSF (Bitcoin Takeover S15 E68) bitcoin
Update your rhetoric software. https://bip300cusf.com/cusf.pdf
Putting aside many of the incorrect statements such as "Then it would set a precedent for miners to lead upgrades." Which miners had all along the history of bitcoin (many updates simply don't concern node operators), there being different versons of "Bitcoin" software was always the case and is the case.
This approach is different and by design is not excludable or censorable the way ordinals were.
The block size wars were a giant waste of resources and Bitcoin is more centralized and heading towards centralization more and more:
ASICS, CEX's, compliance, centralization of Core, Centralization of LSP's (which was supposed to scale bitcoin use, they can't btw) much higher adoption of custodied wallets and on ramps.
All could have been avoided with larger or dynamic blocks.
All could have been avoided with larger or dynamic blocks.
Hey bigblocker, what are you doing here in StackerNews? , go build a layer1-based website with BCash and use it, don't bring your non-technical propaganda here.
reply
All could have been avoided with larger or dynamic blocks.
lololol. Yes. And when we run out of transaction space again, what then? Oh right, bigger blocks, of course! Until running a node is so resource intensive that only governments and big corps can run them, like Eth, where >50% of nodes are hosted in one of like two corporate datacenters because of the insane hardware requirements. Bigger blocks along fix literally nothing. Get out of here with that.
I want the protocol to evolve, I welcome change, I don't welcome rehashing the same idiocy all over again, or anybody else who wants to do that.
reply