Pages:
Author

Topic: The Blocksize War is still ongoing. - page 4. (Read 719 times)

legendary
Activity: 2870
Merit: 7490
Crypto Swap Exchange
March 21, 2024, 05:17:32 AM
#5
Block size war is over. People who support bigger block size, but still choose Bitcoin is in minority.

It’s crucial not to let these subsequent layers become mere copies of the current system.

Mere copies? Ridiculous, many sidechain/L2 offer feature what Bitcoin doesn't.

Lightning Network is an excellent system, but I cannot truly claim to always possess my funds. Doing so would be far from simple, and I end up relying on someone else.

LN is far from perfect and only meant for micro-transaction. But FWIW there are few light non-custodial LN wallet where you only rely on 3rd party watchtower.

Liquid is cost-effective, and I hold my private keys, but the system is controlled by a few companies.

That's true, but Liquid also offer Confidential Transaction, faster block time and turing-complete smart contract.
legendary
Activity: 4214
Merit: 4458
March 20, 2024, 07:39:12 PM
#4
doomad never understands scaling
he thinks scaling means LEAPING to huge sizes is scaling because whenever anyone talks of scaling he cries about super size blocks to amounts NO ONE but his cultish ilk mention

scaling is small progressive growth.. not delay and leap.. .. but its doomads cultish ilk that want delays and then jumps but only when they command it via their idols they treat as gods (centralised devs protected by politics of moderation policies and hierarchy of reference client sole control)

..
funny part is he loves to say bitcoin should allow one transaction to cost $50 but then says bitcoin should not scale due to fears of the same $50 being the cost to store 20 years+ of transactions(billions of transactions)
reality is, once he takes his meds, one day he will see if he thinks people should pay many $'s per use then a $50 hard drive which all computers need anyway is more then enough for decades of decentralising the blockchain
he cant play poverty at decades of use but be ok with single use premium costs.. thats insanity

if he is ok with his crappy narrative of $100 to lock-unlock from his favoured shoddy subnetwork once a year. then he should have no fear of a $50 cost per 5-15 year. and should actually want to see onchain transactions cost under $1 each where many people collectively transact to then give mining pools a nice bonus total
legendary
Activity: 3724
Merit: 3063
Leave no FUD unchallenged
March 20, 2024, 07:25:38 PM
#3
Bitcoin, has chosen the long-term path—one where the base layer cannot scale and must ossify to remain secure and decentralized.

That sounds a little... absolutist?  If that's going to set the tone for this thread, we're off to a ropey start.  So let's get a few things clarified here:

It's not that the base layer "cannot" scale.  It's that it has to be scaled intelligently because there are consequences to getting it wrong.  I would also argue quite a few users of the word don't correctly comprehend the meaning of 'scaling' to begin with, anyway.  

'Linear growth' is not the same as 'scaling'.  BCH is doing linear growth.  That's not an improvement of technology, it's just using more resources in the same inefficient way.  Real scaling comes from advancing technology.
sr. member
Activity: 336
Merit: 296
March 20, 2024, 06:42:04 PM
#2
For our savings, we must retain self-custody, but I would contend that custody of little sums is not always a terrible thing.  Yes, I would prefer to pay with my own money when I buy myself a coffee, but if doing so requires me to incur exorbitant costs or run the danger of starting another block size war, then forget it.  I retain Bitcoin for my big quantities and prefer to place a little faith in a reputable third party.
newbie
Activity: 3
Merit: 0
March 20, 2024, 05:53:24 PM
#1
The custodial path is the wrong way.
-----
One of Bitcoin’s strengths lies in the certainty of controlling one’s own funds, with no possibility for others to access them unless they possess the private keys to do so.

During the Blocksize Wars, two distinct factions emerged, represented by equally distinct chains. After the recent end of the Faketoshi saga, only Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash remain from all the noise of those years.
At first glance, it seems that the first faction, Bitcoin, has chosen the long-term path—one where the base layer cannot scale and must ossify to remain secure and decentralized. Meanwhile, the second faction, Bitcoin Cash, has opted for a shorter route—a path where the base layer can scale and adapt more easily, allowing immediate use by all users
In my view, neither of these choices can be definitively labeled as long-term or short-term. If we examine the details closely, developing suitable subsequent layers takes time, but building mass adoption on the base layer requires just as much effort.
-----
I have one certainty: the custodial path is the wrong way, and turning a blind eye could prove fatal.

Currently, on-chain transactions with Bitcoin are still feasible for moderate amounts, but they are prohibitive for smaller sums. Mathematically, fees are destined to increase. Following this trajectory, it’s logical to assume that in the future, we will conduct most transactions on subsequent layers while keeping savings on-chain. Alternatively, we might transform the current system into a slower one, where instead of buying a low-quality pair of jeans each month, to avoid fees we opt for a high-quality pair once a year. However, taking the path of layers 2, 3, and beyond would be in vain.

It’s crucial not to let these subsequent layers become mere copies of the current system. Lightning Network is an excellent system, but I cannot truly claim to always possess my funds. Doing so would be far from simple, and I end up relying on someone else. Liquid is cost-effective, and I hold my private keys, but the system is controlled by a few companies. Bitcoin Cash scales, and I have my private keys; I don’t need to trust anyone. However, the mining incentive and fees are near to negligible, making the network vulnerable to attacks.

Make no mistake, Bitcoin works. It is the greatest revolutionary act of the century—a tool that will serve humanity’s evolution. However, we must have vision, think about the future and the next generations. Let’s pause for a moment and take the truly challenging path, perhaps the best but the longest, to make the system entirely uncensorable.
Don’t assume that the solutions we have today are definitive. The upgrade to Bitcoin’s source code that will lead to its victory is yet to come, and it will happen gradually, with total consensus. No, no altcoin will bring about this revolution. Bitcoin’s functionality makes it the only usable tool to achieve our purpose.
Pages:
Jump to: