Nick Szabo  🔑

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.

In general, harm from risks is superlinear, so if you must choose risks then spreading allocation is wise. Cf. "everything in moderation"

In this case, I think the correct principle is: cost of sending a tx and cost of running a node should rise at the same rate.

How do you percieve DAG based DLTs as a solution to the micropayment issue? satoshipay.io is converting its nanopayment service to IOTA atm

There are other (mental) factors limiting micropayments. Years of peer review needed before should trust large sums to DAGchains.

If bitcoin isn't a solution for micro payments then what was it a solution for? #socialJusticeDecentralizationWarrior ?

Censorship resistant value storage and transfer.