9480 stacked

Lack of fungibility, coin taint, whitelisting, source of funds & KYC requirements, impossible tax reporting requirements etc. They can make it so difficult to use Bitcoin proper that everyone just uses regulated exchanges and then we're back to square one with fractional reserve banks again. At that point it becomes easy to bypass the 21M limit because most bitcoin will be paper IOUs anyway. Sound money goes out the window.

You could still have the shorthand without ruining the UX

I notice you don't include the @ in the username url, so why would you include the tilde in the sub url?

I would suggest sticking with normal url path structure, like /x/path

Why break the convention? For what purpose?

If you plan to have subreddit style categories you could auction them off almost like domain names, where users could buy their own stacker sections with lightning. could even make it recurring requiring a set number of sats per month, or year, or whatever.

He wasn't wrong, still should have hodled though.

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.

First principles thinking would have you consider both extremes. What about a 1GB block size? What about a 1KB blocksize? Probably neither of those would be acceptable, so how do we arrive at the appropriate limit? To me it seems the limit should be variable and based upon a reasonable hardware capacity such that nodes can still be run worldwide, but where transactions remain affordable for all. The current limit is too low imo and unnecessarily punishes economic activity on-chain to ensure nodes can be run on hardware that practically nobody uses.

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?

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.

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?

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.


  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.

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?

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?

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?

Do you believe the block size limit should remain at 1MB forever (other optimizations aside)?

Sure, they can coexist right up until the point that your CBDC conveniently stops working as a means of transferring value to crypto because the central bank controls it and thus determines what you can spend your money on. Think private banks shutting down crypto accounts was bad? Just wait until the actual monetary system itself can shut you down.

Yep, back when being a millionaire still meant something. Luckily today we have Bitcoin, and once the bulk of humanity starts using it as our unit of account and medium of exchange we will be able to preserve the value of our wages and savings over time without needing to seek alternate stores of value.

CPI doesn't tell the full story of inflation, in fact it's mostly a lie. Check your wage against asset inflation over time. Most people's wages are not keeping up with real assets.

btw, I am doing the exact same thing on bitcoininflationindex.com. I use netlify for my frontend and use their "On-demand builders" to generate images which are cached on the edge.


Works perfect for this use-case. You could spin up a netlify microservice specifically for this purpose and run it separate from the site.

Here is my code for reference: https://gist.github.com/theshanergy/42fd16010cc968b47f93df1a5413a6f1