Post by bergealex4 / iris

No 🫂

Sure, ignorance is always an option. I'll just choose not to engage with those who don't wish to have productive conversations.

Thank you for the thoughtful presentation and conversation. I am cautions by nature and this feels abstract. If you have a moment, could you briefly explain what is definitely lost if the block size stays the same?

Main point is on the goldilocks slide. Demand fluctuates due to a wide variety of factors. If supply is static then the likelihood that the supply is optimal at any given point becomes quite low. If cost of block space is too low, it has centralizing effects / makes thermodynamic security unsustai

This sort of self correcting mechanism is elegant and appealing. Seems like the difficulty adjustment.

That's the idea.

This is an argument against the bitcoin supply cap as well. Which for some reason everyone gets is fallacious.

Good point Jack. What’s wrong with the code being a static cosmological constant? Why can’t it simply be “it is what it is”? Wouldn’t the ecosystem adapt to the parameters?

JackTheMimic

That is precisely what an economy does. Limitations of scarcity drive people to organize the resources most efficiently. Blocksize is no different. Humans often drive toward the power in numbers model because of evolutionary survival strategies. But, in this case decentralization mitigates the bigge

Has low cost of block space really resulted in a security risk? I get that security is not maximized in this co text, but maybe it’s optimized? Is it really a problem for Bitcoin to be a premium network for the most important transactions? Why does it have to be the network for all transactions?

Paying for thermodynamic security is a long term problem as the block subsidy decreases. It's not really a problem until we go a full cycle without doubling the exchange rate. Bitcoin will never be able to be everything for everyone. But IMO we should try to support as many users as is safely possi

If blocks stay at same size some future transactions get priced out? Need to be aggregated with off chain layer 2. But miner revenue is predictable/strong?

We can rebalance Lightning channels offchain. The Lightning whitepaper is dated and not relevant anymore. Bullish ingenuity. Bearish magic numbers and central planning.

Rebalancing allows people to keep channels open longer. They still need to open and close channels from time to time. And Lightning is only one of many sources of block space demand.

Now that we can batch transactions thanks to Taproot and connectors, every prior needs to be reexamined. The return on investment for developing solutions that leverage this new paradigm is far greater than hand-wringing over the block size.

It's not an either / or issue. Obviously folks should continue improving layer 2 solutions. What if they are so successful that demand for block space remains below the threshold necessary for a robust fee market? We will have screwed ourselves out of sustainable thermodynamic security via our ow

It’s quite incredible that this type of discourse is being held by Bitcoiners. “What if consumers do no spend enough, we might have to twist the knobs of the economy to fix it” Layer 2s are anchored in Bitcoin. They directly lead to more economically dense transactions, if adopted. Trying to int

Not sure if you watched but the economics is only one issue Another is centralizing forces. Another is taking advantage of technological growth. The world will continue to change, the question becomes whether or not Bitcoin will adapt.

The world will adapt to Bitcoin. Not much else is needed. Adjusting economic inputs regardless of the motivation is an exercise in centralization.

Yeah, and the world may adapt by sending the overwhelming majority of users through ETFs and trusted third parties. The most convenient way to "scale Bitcoin" is an exercise in centralization.

You don’t need the majority of users to generate sufficient economic demand onchain. Realistically only a small percentage suffice.

Jack K

I think it’s more simpler than this. I’d make the argument that Bitcoiners don’t actually understand Bitcoin. If that statement is true, then we have a limited understanding of what the blocksize even is. Why are we trying to change something we don’t yet fully understand?

freecritter

Glad to see these convos on Nostr!

I’m thinking about why adjusting economic inputs is an exercise in centralization. Do you mean that because the action requires coordination it is de facto centralized? Or maybe because the intent is to benefit some group—the ability to focus specific attention is evidence of centralization?

How do you agree on the security target? How is this any different than agreeing on the “right” inflation rate?

Ya, it’s probably better to just throw the ring in the fire. Ossification seems safer than favoring actions, shenanigans, and unintended consequences.

Well on average humans yelling "do something" has historically lead to misery, famine and death.

In the face of large scale institutional adoption it seems better to stand on immutability rather than try for Goldilocks.

A change today to the benefit of some will beget a change tomorrow for the benefit of others. The BIPs you highlighted demonstrate the difficulty of Goldilocksing the protocol. Maybe we should put the Fed in charge of the protocol. They can fine tune the dials for optimal performance.

That's exactly why we shouldn't have humans pulling numbers out of thin air. Much like how we don't have humans deciding what the mining difficulty should be. An algorithm seems to be the only solution.

JackTheMimic

Blocksize is the scarcity that gives Bitcoin TRANSACTIONS value. Whereas the supply cap is the scarcity that gives the coin value. This is why I implore the cypherpunks to learn more about economics and economists to learn more about privacy. The focus should be Mining. The more you can distribute

100

Cpt. Charisma

https://m.primal.net/OGBY.png

Ronin

1-extremely high fees drives people away from self custody bitcoin, it makes bitcoin more like gold, wich is almost useless as money. 2-increase of blocksize is the most elegant, clean, and easy way to allow more people to on-board bitcoin. 3-Problem is how to implement it, it should be dynamicly a

John Dee