Nick Szabo  🔑

No it is very much not OK. It creates a far more vulnerable system.

Bullshit, I hear lightning engineers take instant coffee payments' security (with BitcoinChain) very seriously @rusty_twit

So seriously that you'd be satisfied HODLing on Lightning itself and never settling on the main chain?

"holding a lightning" sounds like "holding part of a smart contract backed with bitcoin" are we ralking paat each other?

My OP wasn't about Lightning so I think we are talking past each other :-)

things have gotten so bad that greatest thinkers have turned to humor.

@Coinbase is what I use fir stuff like #Coffee

True! If security is there but user convenience is completely ignored, then why not store value under the mattress or inside the underwear!?

User convenience isn't completely ignored. Bitcoin works fine, you can store value in it just fine.

How convenient is it when you want to do a small transaction but the fee for it is nearly its own price?

Nobody wants high fees. Nobody thinks blocks should never get larger. How much security are you willing to trade for lower fees?

Hard question, no good way yet to decide how much security/decentralization is enough. Stakes are high though.

An even thornier conundrum: miners, full nodes and users are mostly distinct groups now. Complex dynamics of the original design are broken.

I think the problem originates from the fact that for miners it's win-win - obtain control or fail, they're still making bank

It's all roses until PoW is changed.