As long as charlatans insist on treating block size as a political football instead of a technical security setting, Bitcoin is in danger.
-
Agree! Though this can be interpreted multiple ways, eg "we need the block size to be big with large safety margins so blocks don't clog up"
No. Clogging up is not a matter of safety (security): it's mainly just a matter of fees.
-
-
When fees rise enough to make physical hologram millibitcoins unspendable, that's de-facto loss of funds. That *is* a security failure.
-
It's an extremely limited failure based on people using a blockchain in a way it could not sustainably be used (i.e. for micropayments).
-
And it's not in the slightest a systemic security failure. It's completely localized to txs that used crypto in a very unscalable way.
-
The other faction would say, it's running a node on consumer hardware that's "using crypto in a very unscalable way"
-
You could say "ah, but reducing node count is a centralization risk"
-
But so is reducing onchain user count. It encourages users to use possibly centralized L2 platforms which may become regulatory choke points
-
Personally, I believe that the principle of conservatism (which IMO is a good one) actually leads to a different conclusion...
-
Namely, when trading off between risk A and risk B, take the middle road.
- 4 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Go buy some bigger hard drives so we can have more power. BIGGER blocks, FASTER blocks, CHEAPER fees!pic.twitter.com/odTh6hUSEU
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.