As long as charlatans insist on treating block size as a political football instead of a technical security setting, Bitcoin is in danger.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Fees are now 100x higher, so should wait for cost of a node to increase 100x before letting fees increase more.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
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.