I have come to the conclusion that the network's sustainability is impossible to predict in the current phase. There are just too many parameters to take into account. What will the price of bitcoin be in decades ahead, what levels of security are considered sufficient, what kind of layers we'll have by then, what other incentives, maybe even nation strategies concerning cryptocurrencies. However, I'm sure for one thing: activity. If there's demand for the network to operate, it will be supplied. And for a network of global scale to operate normally, I think we need to concentrate on one thing: scalability.
I don't believe that changing the block size limit is the ticket for a global scaled network. But, neither do I believe that leaving it as is, is too. I'm all in for transaction compression (which is what's scaling in the end), as an off-chain solution like lightning, but the problem with this is that it restricts access to technically incompetent users. It fundamentally does, because no ordinary person who wants to gain the benefits of peer-to-peer cash, has the time to configure a lightning node, a Bitcoin node, and run both. Even if he goes on with pre-installed solutions (e.g., Umbrel), which separate the technical part from the end user, it's still discouraging because the user has to have a computer running every day, all day, which is orders of magnitude more difficult than holding a private key, and more expensive.
Big blocks, I agree, throw out a significant part of "small players" out of the window, because the cost of infrastructure to run a node rises significantly. Even my Raspberry Pi 4 sort of slowed down recently with the Ordinals overwhelming the mempool. But, ironically, so do small blocks if we take the lightning path ("small", in terms of technical competence). Therefore, I notice one thing: the future of Bitcoin's scalability is misty.
But, scalability, as per se, isn't only what's concerning me. In fact, it's rather the stimulus. It's what is likely to cause the real problem; discord. As I said at first, as long as there's a consensus around a particular set of rules, there can be progression. If the network splits, the result might not be as desired as expected. So, let's have a talk. Fruitful discussion is our only weapon we, as forum, have to confront this.
Here's some questions for debate:
- Will there probably be another block size war? If yes, shouldn't we take precautions now that we've learned from the mistakes of the previous time? What precautions?
- Should we rise the block size limit at some point in the future? If yes, how much? If no, what's the appropriate alternative?
- Can there be progression without backwards-compatibility?
Self-moderated. Will not ever delete post based on opinion. Keep things civil. Be constructive.