Now halal certified!

wew

If I was running this site, it'd be called the "Not A Pussy" mode; clashes with the thematics, yes, but more accurately describes what it entails.

A pretty butterfly, some nice flowers... clouds.

The future of "Bitcoin" is statist subservience and corporate cocksucking, and if you don't like it, you were never a "Bitcoin" maxi.

lol lmao even

When I say the latter, it's seeing its adoption in both its current form and at their hands. That's not something I'm a fan of.

What part creates a schism? The entire point of Bitcoin as it was originally created was to disrupt both traditional banking systems and the global fiat currencies underpinning them; I'm sure the OG cypherpunks (who are all using Monero or Pirate now, or something even more niche and/or private) and Satoshi themselves would be pissed seeing JPMorgan Chase and firms like Blackrock gush all over it now that it poses no systematic threat.

Ideally, the statist asskissing ceases well before it reaches the displacement point. Otherwise, it's globally adopted at the cost of disruptive impact and ability to truly finance freely.

Niche Displacement > Accepted Subversion

Scaling it to try to beat traditional payment processors, I do agree that's a nonsensical pursuit and endeavor.

Increasing it to remain and retain competitive ability and decentralization at an individual level isn't something I feel is nonsense though.

Good to hear that, even if you don't feel the way I do about the scalability problem (and question). We can both agree though that undefined blocks that are allowed to balloon to hell are bad, at the very least.

I use what I do currently in spite of my increasingly vocal hangups, because it's as I've said on Nostr, it's still better than fiat in spite of everything being done to make it suck.

Hopefully you're acknowledging where Lightning falls short at both a technical and usability level (when it works, I mostly have no issue with it functionally). If things had to be done the exact way it was again, but with eight years of hindsight, the best of Lightning itself and Cashu would be the system I'd prefer under those specific circumstances.

Most sources have it at its current 2 MB blocksize at 3-7 TPS, so multiplying the highest value gives us 56 TPS; the lowest value at 3 TPS multiplied would still give us 24 TPS, which whilst not comparable to VISA's TPS is far better than what BSC has now.

Still nowhere near BCH's 200 TPS, but an improvement would be felt. That's not even factoring in transaction fees, which aren't a thing (officially) in BCH due to its prioritization of cheap and fast transactions (most of the time), but if you wanted something confirmed instantly, you could pay 50¢ or a full U.S. dollar (or stacker pleb's local fiat equivalent) in sats if you so chose.

I'd rather it be one agreed upon (unlikely to occur) size that's implemented in a way that ensures both compatibility and minimum breakage; BCH is at 32 MB block sizes now, so having BSC at just half of that at 16 MB would do so much for scalability, including having most (if not all) of Lightning's functionality on-chain.

My viewpoint comes down to seeing years of seeing ongoing efforts to sidestep the actual solution to lack of scalability (increasing the block size to 2017-19 BCH levels), and instead try to push Lightning (which Blockstream alongside other paid off and/or deluded developers pivoted towards after their forceful pushing of Liquid failed at the time) as the solution, when you'd be lucky to get even 5% of BSC users to adopt at a self-custodial level without getting wrecked at either a management or application level (bugs can fuck over even the most technically versed of users).

That's on top of disingenuous arguments claiming that raising the block size would kill decentralization (lol) of BSC despite Bitcoin having no size limits originally, and the piece of code that introduced such as a temporary fix for then-real issues around double spending and blockchain drift in 2010 (which is something I touch on in an article that'll be published When It's Ready™ to @lain)... and then raising it an entire megabyte via SegWit and Taproot later on.

When I first jumped ship from one shitcoin to what I believed wasn't another shitcoin in 2021, it was under the presumption that what I thought was Bitcoin was intended to be better money solely without any added fluff or technical excess; you can even find early comments on this account and my Lain account where I joke about not being a maxi for whatever reason(s) I'd give on a per-comment basis.

I'd never be one of any currency and/or shitcoin, but especially not BSC, because I can now see how fundamentally compromised it's been by those who have no interest in it truly displacing the banking system or fiat. No one can force anyone else to pick up on that, the cognitive dissonance has to wear off naturally.

If this goes through, Blockstream Coin basically becomes Shitoshi's Venture with detrimentally small blocks rather than detrimentally "make them whatever size you want" blocks.

It's funny how the Cashers became vindicated in all their claims about their currency being the true Bitcoin, alongside everything else they've said for nearly a decade... all they need was lots of time for the corporate and governmental subversion to eat away at what little remained of its facade.

The cult has lost its "community" moniker since 2017, doubling down on defending the worst possible decisions and individual "representatives."

I left the Shitereum community just to end up witnessing another form of it being birthed. No fucking thanks.

In response to this post and your subsequently posted replies containing screenshotted reactions, anyone still calling Blockstream Coin "Bitcoin" at this point is an absolute fucking retard.

lol lmao, even

Remember this for when these same people call anything else a shitcoin. They can absolutely get fucked.

Yes.