Nick Szabo  🔑

I am a strong proponent of technical feasibility over political ones, simply because it will avoid politics.

In an ideal scenario that would be simple but technology is also driven by human purpose and that's the tension here which purpose and how

Given Mimblewimble and LN, the ideal scenario is getting closer.

Lightning also needs scaling the base layer as well so most channels will be comprised of a dozen transactions

security question: do you understand that most security properties are lost if users can not keep up with validation?

We do and will publish information on this subject to discuss it openly. Any good analysis on block size vs security / descentralization?

Why would you make this proposal without having already seen a security analysis or done your own?

We did our own I'm just asking for additional sources

@NickSzabo4 Nick, I am confused, how is block size not a central issue? I don't get it, I used to think you created Bitcoin /1

If you thought he was Satoshi but gave that up because you don't like one thing he said, you should probably examine your own beliefs first.

To be blunt, in my head I imagine Satoshi to be far longer-sighted // seeing the bigger picture. Where's the accountability?

Maybe he sees the real issue and you don't?

Are you kidding me? Bitcoin utility rapidly falling away is not a real issue? Lmao!

No, not kidding. I'm also not assuming I no the issue better than some1 who invented smartcontracts & was quoted by satoshi n the whitepaper

If certain parties were not going to be OK with a hardfork, then why didn't they release lightning/segwit years ago?? **Accountability**

What's stopping scaling is Strictly social blockers. Code was produced long ago. How could he know the minds of other men?

Hint: In systems, Security and Usability are always in conflict. In the extreme, 100% security == 0% usability

for it to be a global currency it has to be capable of being used. at 1Mb, still an experiment. 2Mb or 20Mb wouldn't make it less safer.

Depends on what you call safe, bigger blocks after certain size make running full nodes prohibitive to many, that equals to centralization

The lack of intrinsic incentives to run full nodes (barely 6k), a single client + few expensive slow txs already makes it centralized.

We have a fullnode incentive model at RSK but is highly experimental, lowering tx cost 1 & even 2 orders of magnitude requires second layers

that sounds awesome could you share a link to paper/abstract/docs

so I see this talks about proof of storage, but what's the incentive? a portion of the block reward?

Yes for now will be 1% of the fees of the network it may be tune to ensure would node count to transaction ratio